Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL ROOM CALL TO ORDER: Tammy Ehinger, Chair called the meeting of the Design Review Board to order at 6:05 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Chris Bennett, Geoff Wood. ABSENT: Jeff Gritsavage, Karen Cavotta. STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino, City Planner. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from August 6, 2025. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor, Motion carried. B. POSSIBLE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: NOTE: The intent of a consent agenda is to identify any "approvable" applications without the need for further evaluation or discussion. If anyone wishes to further discuss any proposed consent agenda item, that item would then be pulled from the Consent Agenda and considered individually. 1. #20250633 83 Railroad Place, Coldwell Banker signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage in the Urban Core (UC/T-6) District. 2. #20250677 53 Putnam St. Mixed Use Construction Extension. Historic Review of an extension to an approved application for a 5-story mixed-use development within the Urban Core (UC/T-6) District. 3. #20250678 743 N. Broadway Verizon Utility Pole Adjacent to 743 No. Broadway. Historic Review of addition of wireless small cell antenna and equipment to an existing utility pole in the public right-of-way within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 4. #20250740 78 Church St. signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 5. #20250687 266 Lake Ave. Façade Change. Architectural review of exterior modifications of basement windows within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 6. #20250341 3/26 Finley St. Demolition and Construction. Architectural review of a modification to an approved construction application to include a solar panel array within the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. Rob DuBoff had questions regarding Spirit Halloween, and it was removed from the consent agenda for further discussion. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 83 Railroad Place, Coldwell Banker signage,155 Ballston Ave., Mixed Use Construction Extension, 743 N. Broadway Verizon Utility Pole, 78 Church St. Signage, 266 Lake Ave. Façade Change, and 3/26 Finley St. Demolition and Construction, Saratoga Springs NY. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. 7. #20250664 155 Ballston Ave. Spirit Halloween Signage. Architectural review of wall mounted signage in the Gateway Urban Commercial (GC-U) District. Discussion: the applicant initially wanted a temporary banner sign which is only allowed to be up for 30 days and decided to seek a variance for a permanent sign. They would not have been able to get on the ZBA agenda until mid-September and a variance until the end of September which would not be helpful for their seasonal business. Julia suggested that the applicant ask for a permanent sign and just keep it up for 60 days. Code enforcement will ensure that the sign is removed at the conclusion of the season. It is not meant to last through the winter. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the signage for 155 Ballston Ave., Spirit Halloween with the condition that the sign is to be removed after 60 days. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 8. #20250690 15 Spring St. Keuka Spring Vineyards. Historic review of signage and exterior modifications to an existing storefront within the Urban Core (T-5) District 9. #20250713 25 Phila St. Verizon exterior modification. Historic Review of exterior modifications – fuel tank and generator installation and screening within the Urban Core District. 10. #20250718 543 Broadway Bear’s Cup Exterior Modifications. Historic review of signage and exterior modifications to an existing commercial structure within the Urban Core District. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 2 of 16 11. #20250385 624 N. Broadway UUC Demolition & Construction. Historic Review of new construction of a four-unit, three-level residential building within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 12. #20250063 115 Regent St. Construction. Historic review of proposed window and siding replacements to an existing two-story structure within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. 13. #20250221 195 Lake Ave. Demolition and Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing carriage house within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. 14. 20250340 151 Van Dam St. Architectural Review of new construction of a two-story, two-car garage within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 15. #20250724 176 Lake Ave. Mountons United LLC Demolition & Construction. in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing garage, discussion of new parking area and ADA compliant ramp to an existing structure within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 16. #20250739 165 Phila St. roof replacement. Historic Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3). __________________________________________________ 8. #20250690 15 Spring St. Keuka Spring Vineyards. Historic review of signage and exterior modifications to an existing storefront within the Urban Core (T-5) District Autumn Manning, Regional Manager for Keuka Spring Vineyards, Kevin Reeder, General Manager, Keuka Lake, and Derek Disanto, Contractor represented the application. They are a New York winery from the Finger Lakes, have a small satellite location on Broadway and are opening a larger location on 15 Spring St. They are asking to update the main door entrance on their storefront on Spring St. and install a small window for more light that is in accordance with the city’s historic code. Derek said the window will be a full wood interior/exterior window. Autumn said they are also seeking approval for a sign “Keuka Springs Vineyards” on the storefront. The replacement door will be a custom milled mahogany door, 42” x 84”. Tamie – said she has no concerns now that the windows will be wood instead of vinyl. The proposed signage is unlit which is fine, and the door is appropriate and compatible with the neighborhood. She has no issue moving forward. Chris agreed with Tamie and asked if they would be changing the lighting above the doorway. Derek said they will be proposing a change to that lighting in a future application. Rob and Geoff had no concerns about the proposal. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 3 of 16 Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the application and there were none. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve the application for exterior modifications at 15 Spring St., Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. 9. #20250713 25 Phila St. Verizon exterior modification. Historic Review of exterior modifications – fuel tank and generator installation and screening within the Urban Core District. Al Daniels, IPD Engineering and Matthew L. Connor, Project Manager for Verizon represented the applicant. They are proposing to upgrade to a larger electrical service to accommodate growth in the building. National Grid is unable to support the upgrade with pole mounted transformers; it needs to be a pad mounted transformer to serve the building. The location of the transformer is dictated by National Grid based on existing utilities and will be in front of building. The underground fuel tank supporting the existing emergency generator will be removed and replaced with an above ground fuel tank to the left of the new transformer in that location. Conduits will be required to go up the exterior of the building from the transformer to the main connect switch located in the electrical room on the second floor. The board expressed concern over a proposed chain link fence, so the applicant presented an aluminum privacy fence (choice of slatted or solid) as an option. Tamie asked what the height of the fence would be. Al said it would be 8’ to be as high as the stairs that come off the top of the fuel tanks for filling purposes. Susan said the maximum height allowed for the fence is 6’. Tamie said the fuel tank needs to be screened, but a solid wall along a pedestrian walkway does not align with the walkability plan for the downtown. A 6 ft slatted fence is appropriate, and aluminum is a much better product. Geoff agreed with Tamie about the slatted version of the fence and aluminum is a much better product. He said because the fuel tank is up against the building and out of the way of pedestrians he would be okay with an 8 ft. fence to hide the stairs. The fence by the pedestrian walkway around the transformer could be lower; 4 ft. was suggested and the applicant agreed. The board members agreed to allow an 8’ slatted fence around the fuel tank and a 4’ fence/screening around the transformer. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Historic Preservation Foundation asked if the conduit would be painted. Al said it will be painted to match the building. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 25 Phila St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: the fence screening be slatted aluminum. The City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 4 of 16 height shall be 8 ft. surrounding the fuel tank and 4 ft. tall surrounding the transformer. The fuel piping will be painted to match the building. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. 10. #20250718 543 Broadway Bear’s Cup Exterior Modifications. Historic review of signage and exterior modifications to an existing commercial structure within the Urban Core District. Jonathan Haynes, Phinney Design Group and Greg and Danielle Desantis, owners of Bear Cup represented the application. The applicants are seeking to convert the former “Firehouse” space from a carpet retailer to a bagel/coffee sandwich shop. They are seeking approval for the mechanical exhaust, signage and awning. The mechanical exhaust will have 2 new intakes through the former window, two 8” vents/exhaust for the interior ovens and a 4 ft. gooseneck on the one-story roof to the right. The exhaust will be located at the rear of the building with the other utilities, dumpsters, etc. and will be well screened from Van Dam. The lettering on the sign was reduced from the original submittal to be in keeping with code requirements and is the same design style and layout as what was there for Jacobsen Rugs and the Arthur Murray Dance Studio sign that’s currently on the building. They are seeking to replace the half circle awning over the doorway with a shed style awning. Tamie said she has no concerns about the awning or proposed signage. The location is appropriate and compatible with what was there. The remaining board members had no concerns. Rob asked if they considered a blade sign. Danielle said they did consider it but felt it wasn’t necessary. They liked what was there with the previous business and felt it went better with the architecture of the building. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the application. There were no audience comments. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 543 Broadway, Saratoga Springs, NY as submitted. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. 11. #20250385 624 N. Broadway UUC Demolition & Construction. Historic Review of new construction of a four-unit, three-level residential building within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was before the board previously for a determination of significance and demolition approval, and to present plans for the lot. The applicant returned with revised plans based on the board’s comments. George Olsen and Brandie Hall, Olsen Associates represented the application. The board previously indicated it was a good-looking building but too urban. Two of the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 5 of 16 board members said the building looked appropriate and were anxious to work on the details. One board member of the five said they would not consider the project without a porch across the front. A front porch was added, and the building was reduced by a foot on each side and moved back. They increased the size of the second and third floor windows and beefed up the overhangs. They eliminated the limestone panels on the previous design and added a more rusticated stone to match the foundation treatments of some of the older buildings in the area. The porch on the right of the building is curvilinear on the first and second floor. George presented elevations and a list of materials Tamie noted that there were a large number of letters; 40 public comments against the project submitted to the city. The comments used words like incompatible, unsightly, industrial, commercial, eyesore, etc. This is one of Saratoga’s most historical and walkable streets and it’s important that what’s built on the lot is contextually and historically appropriate. The DRB is tasked with ensuring that any new construction within the city’s historic districts adhere to appropriate historic standards. The board looks at the mass, scale and proportions of the structure, contextual appropriateness, street orientation, entrances, step backs, setbacks, fenestration (placement of windows) materials, etc. Tamie said the building is beautiful and there have been some improvements over the last proposal such as breaking up the mass of the building. It just doesn’t belong in this location; it’s more suited to downtown, West Ave., Excelsior Ave. It is an urban building situated in a residential area. She suggested that the applicant look at the condos on Union Ave. where a multi-family was built with the look and feel of a residential structure. Chris agreed with Tamie 100%, Rob had nothing to add, and Geoff agreed with all of the comments. Geoff said it’s a handsome looking building in the right location. He suggested 4 separate entrances on the ground level would make it look more residential. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the application. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said it’s an attractive design if it were located in a more urban part of the city. The entrance to the garage should be off the alley as most of the homes on N. Broadway are historically accessed off the alley. Variances may be required but that may be what’s necessary for approval. Casey Cali, moved in around the corner in April and loves the city’s commitment to preserving the historical nature of the buildings. She agrees with the 40 letters but not the term “eyesore”. Tamie agreed that if it’s possible to have a garage entrance begin and end at an alley it would be more historically accurate as well as safer at this tricky intersection. George listed other properties nearby that access their garages off of Broadway. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 6 of 16 12. #20250063 115 Regent St. Construction. Historic review of proposed window and siding replacements to an existing two-story structure within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District. Tamie noted that the applicant has been before the board in the past and has been given approvals for some exterior changes and an addition. The applicant has returned to discuss issues they’re having with the exterior cladding and replacement windows. Rob stated that the conditions in the Notice of Decision outlined the requirements for the siding and asked why this was not considered a new application. Julia said it would just be a modification to the application because it was something they learned after the fact. Tamie said if the board is considering it as a modification to an approval; it’s a muddy area. Archie Debraski, Balzar & Tuck Architecture represented the applicant. Jessica Todtenhagen, Director of Beagle School was also present. Archie said there’s currently an existing classroom on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor. They’re building an additional classroom in the back and renovating the upstairs into a third classroom. They have received approval from the DRB for everything except the second-floor windows. Archie cited the Educational Code Compliance and Safety Concerns for registered nursery schools: “Safeguards shall be provided to protect children against injury on account of low windows”. “Windows and doors shall be openable and equipped with safety devices”. “Window hardware shall be a maximum of 54 inches above the floor. It is recommended that all classroom windows permit emergency egress”. “All interior glazing less than 60 inches above the floor shall be safety glazing”. Archie said they researched double hung replacement windows and egress able storm windows and it’s not a product they feel comfortable using; they are difficult to operate and building code says you should not have to require special knowledge or tools to operate. They considered baby gates, but they can also be difficult to open. Both measures would reduce the clear opening of the window making it less compliant. Casement windows swinging out would lead to question historical integrity because they will be messing with the sills, the jams and original trim. Wood windows swinging out would be susceptible to weather. Casement retrofit with a sash arm is possible but can’t be easily removed for egress. Casements that swing in can cause a 4” protrusion into the space and become a “head knocker” for the older kids and teachers. Tempered glass, because there’s lead in the windows they would have to abate the entire window before replacing one individual pane. They spoke with a window restorer, Henry Judge, who was able to find hardware they could use for the double hung windows that would limit the window from opening more than four inches. He could not find anything for the in-swing windows and is concerned for the liability on these windows. There is a solution for the double hung window restoration which was presented to the board. They will remove the storm windows because there’s no way to make them safe for egress. Archie said the two windows on the second-floor front will likely be a point of access for firefighters, and they would prefer to put in new windows that have the safety features integrated. He said they were able to find retrofit hardware that would limit the City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 7 of 16 window from opening but nothing that would easily disarm to allow egress. The applicant feels that the only compliant solution is to replace the windows with aluminum- clad wood windows with all of the safety features integrated. Siding – It was determined that some of the paint on the siding has asbestos in it. The school isn’t comfortable with this; it needs to be removed and give a clean slate for the students. It will also help the historical integrity of the façade by cleaning it up and restoring it to what it could have been in its original state. Summary of applicant requests: Windows: • Existing wood entry door, transom, and carriage doors to be restored. • All other wood windows to be replaced with new aluminum clad wood windows. • Existing vinyl windows are to be replaced with new aluminum wood windows. Siding: • New wood siding to be provided on all existing and new exterior walls. Tamie said it appears that the two front 2nd floor wood windows can be restored and meet code with the proper safety equipment installed, and she would support that solution. From the DRB’s perspective that would be appropriate. The NOD says the siding shall remain unless it’s deteriorated beyond repair. Wholesale replacement is not okay, and the flaws are part of the character. A Google search shows that trace amounts of asbestos does not need to be abated. The solution is to seal and paint it and leave it alone. Archie said there’s work being done that will disturb the asbestos. The contractors will be wearing PPE and disturbing the asbestos. Tamie said almost half of the samples taken showed no asbestos whatsoever and the rest showed a trace amount that you would expect on any siding of that age. The applicant’s documentation shows that the recommendation is to not touch the asbestos. Rob said OSHA recommends that whether it’s friable or not friable you just walk away from it and not abate at all. He asked why the applicant didn’t factor in a second means of egress when they have the space to put in a secondary means or exterior egress. Archie said there’s limited space on the property for an additional staircase. Rob stands by the notice of decision from May that the historic windows be maintained and restored and they can be. He recommended that they look at their floor plan for space for an additional set of stairs or an exterior set of stairs, either of which would solve the problem and be safer in the long run. Chris agreed with Tamie and Rob that the asbestos should be left alone and that the windows and siding should be preserved. The casements are more complicated. The building will be sprinklered and will be safe. The building overall is going to be really safe. Tamie said she would like to see the double hung windows restored with the extra safety measures for an additional means of egress. Geoff agreed with fellow board members. The wholesale removal of the siding is not okay; it needs to be repaired and painted. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the application. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 8 of 16 Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Beagle School has been there for 50 years and she’s not aware of any issue with asbestos or lead. The NYS Department of Labor Asbestos Control said asbestos containing material has to be greater than 1% to be considered a risk. Samantha suggested that the Beagle School may not be where they need to be. It’s a historical building and they are proposing to preserve a portion of the form of the building, a portion of the siding and a handful of windows. Everyone has tried to accommodate the Beagle School staying in this building, in this location, but ultimately if their risks for being in a historic building are lead, asbestos and egress and they can’t fit it into their space, it may no longer be the building for them to be in. What’s left? Lead can be encapsulated and it’s not an asbestos containing material according to NYS. Jessica Todtenhagen said they are trying to be an important part of the community. At 50 years they are the longest running pre-school in Saratoga and have done everything they can as a non-profit school to preserve and remain in the historic building on Regent St. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said based on the discussion, the group is comfortable having the applicant restore the existing double hung windows and using the new hardware that would meet the safety requirements for the school. The windows are character defining. The board does not support the wholesale replacement of the siding. She suggested that the applicant return when there’s a larger board who may look at it differently. Tonight, the motion would be to deny the application. Archie said he would prefer a resolution tonight. Chris asked if it’s necessary for every window to meet the egress code. The answer is that it depends on the interior layout. Geoff said he thinks because it’s a school they all need to be egress. Chris said he wants to see the information regarding that. It was decided by the board that the double hung windows need to be restored and the necessary safety hardware installed. The casements that can be restored should be restored and it needs to be determined how many egress windows are necessary to meet code. There will be no approval for the wholesale replacement of the siding. Rob noted that the casement windows are located in a staircase and a restroom. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant can return if there’s a change in plans or new information to provide to the board. Rob DuBoff made a motion to approve the restoration of the double-hung windows and installation of the necessary safety hardware with the following conditions: the double hung windows to be restored, the wood casement windows to be restored and the siding on the east or front façade to remain. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood 4-0 in favor. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 9 of 16 13. #20250221 195 Lake Ave. Demolition and Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing carriage house within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Erin Murphy, applicant and Garrett Eaton, Contractor represented the applicant. Erin said she moved to 195 Lake Ave. in July of 2024. She contacted the building department prior to going to contract on purchasing the property and spoke with “Connor” about the garage becoming a secondary dwelling. He stated that zoning board approval would be required and indicated that this is a common procedure. The home on the property is very small, and it is the applicant’s intent to have her daughter work remotely from the garage. There was no indication from Connor that DRB approval was necessary or that the structure couldn’t be replaced. The applicant paid above market value with the intent to construct living space in the secondary dwelling. The ZBA approved a secondary dwelling on March 3rd with the requirement that the new structure be moved 10 ft. from the property line. After the variance was granted the applicant was informed that she needed to go before the DRB for approval. Erin said she was told that in order to satisfy the building code almost every element of the current structure would need to be replaced if it were to be used as a secondary dwelling – foundation, walls, stairs, roof, balcony, windows and doors. The applicant requested that the board specify which aspects of the garage merit preservation. Tamie Ehinger, Chair reminded everyone that this is a three-step process; 1. look at the structure and determine significance. 2. If the structure is determined not significant then the board can discuss demolition. 3. After the demolition discussion they talk about what’s being proposed. If the structure is determined to be historically significant, the applicant will need to provide the board with good faith documentation as directed in the UDO. This information has already been provided by the applicant. Rob noted that since they are required by the ZBA to move the structure 10 ft. from property line, perhaps they could create a basement/crawl space and make the lower level habitable. Garrett said there’s 2 by 6 framing and the whole thing would need to be reconstructed to be habitable. Currently the upstairs has a toilet and 6 ft. ceiling. Tamie said this structure has been in this spot for 100 years. The carport has been added but the small structure itself is historically significant and retains some of its original character. It tells a story about the house. Rob said the simplest place to start evaluating historic significance is age. Typically, anything over 50 or 75 years is considered historic in its own right. This structure is on the 1926 Sanborn map and is approximately 100 years old. This structure is a remarkably intact early version of an auto garage that was built when people were transitioning from horses to automobiles. It tells a story of the history of the town and has historic value and significance. Geoff read from a letter submitted today from the Historic Preservation Foundation. “The building at the rear of the property is an intact example of a vernacular craftsman style auto garage. Accessory structures are vital to understanding the full history of our city’s development, including the transition from the use of horse and carriages to City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 10 of 16 automobiles.” Geoff believes age alone does not make a structure historically significant, but this is historically significant in his opinion. Chris agreed that it is a historically significant structure and character defining feature of the property. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the significance of this structure. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the structure at 195 Lake Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY is architecturally and/or historically significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie said the applicant has provided additional good faith information which was reviewed by the board. Garrett summarized the condition of the existing structure and asked the board to clarify a path moving forward. The applicant was approved for a second dwelling, but the structure was determined to be historic and can’t be torn down. There are many deficiencies with the structure, and the applicant is struggling with how they can turn it into a habitable second dwelling without starting from scratch. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized what is required by the applicant and what was provided: 1. The applicant must document good faith efforts in seeking an alternative that will result in the preservation of the structure. The relocation of the structure may be permitted as an alternative to demolition. 2. The applicant must document efforts to find a purchaser interested in acquiring and preserving the structure. 3. The applicant must demonstrate the structure cannot be adapted for any other permitted use whether by the current owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable return. 4. The applicant must submit evidence that the property is not capable of earning a reasonable return. 5. The applicant must provide acceptable post-demolition plans for the site. 6. A Public Hearing must be held. Garrett said Travis Jamison, Hidden Valley Custom Cabinets and Sheds buys and sells old sheds and the cost to get the garage off of the property would be about costly (about $50,000). Travis is willing to dismantle the garage ($15,000) and try to find someone to buy it and reassemble it. To make the structure safe and up to code it would require rebuilding with new lumber over all of the old historic lumber. Garrett provided documentation from a realtor who listed comparable sales on the East side of the city which indicates that the applicant paid above market value for her home because she believed she would be able to have a second dwelling. If that’s not possible, she will be City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 11 of 16 unable to get a reasonable return on her investment if she sells without constructing more living space. Tamie said the applicant provided printed documentation detailing the framing, stairs, doors, windows, roofing, balcony and carport area. The board will determine if the documentation is enough to allow for the demolition of a structure that has been deemed historically/architecturally significant. Rob said he would not support demolition because all of the issues that have been pointed out reflect the proposed change in use of the structure. It can continue to be used as-is without any problems. Chris agreed with Rob and would not support demolition but believes there’s a creative solution with the structure. Garrett said the ZBA said if it is to be habitable space it needs to move 5 ft. forward. If they could move it they can add on to it. Susan said if the existing structure were to be modified it could be considered under the historic carriage house/barn dwelling conversion. In that case it would not need to meet the rear yard setback and could be left in the existing location. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation apologized for the late submission of the letter. She said this is a self-created hardship but appreciates that the applicant went to the effort to speak to the zoning and planning department. The Foundation would support changes that would allow the building to stay or an addition to the building. Stephanie Ferradino – asked If they could keep the main portion of the structure, remove the lean-to addition could they add on to that side and/or the back of the structure. Tamie said in theory that it would be a great adaptive reuse. Tamie asked Julia to send guidelines for additions to the applicant and that they can present their ideas to the DRB. Stephanie asked if they could connect the house and the garage. The board would not agree to that because it would defeat the purpose of preserving the structure. Susan said that the applicant should present their plan to the staff in order to determine whether it is acceptable to the DRB and if it complies with the existing variances. 14. 20250340 151 Van Dam St. Architectural Review of new construction of a two-story, two-car garage within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Shawn Corp, Reveal Architecture Design represented the applicant. Shawn said the applicant received approval from the DRB at a previous meeting to demolish a garage and shed that were determined to be historically and architecturally non-significant. During ZBA review the board determined that they preferred the plumbing to be on the first floor of the building and to grant a larger maximum coverage variance. The City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 12 of 16 applicant received ZBA approval and Shawn presented the new design to the DRB. The footprint was extended by 4 ft. to the west to accommodate the powder room on the first floor. The porch and entry to the garage on the right stayed the same but they added a hallway to access the powder room and a small bench to remove wet boots, etc. and go up a switchback stair to the second level. They removed the shed dormer and added a gable on the north side as well. They shifted the gable on the south side, and the two gables are now aligned. The gable dormer is now centered over the garage doors below. The east elevation is very close to the property line and there’s no need for windows on that elevation. They were able to add an additional window to the west elevation because of the longer hallway on the first floor. Materials: • Roof, asphalt shingle. • The column on the covered porch is a HB&G round tapered composite column with a Tuscan capital and base which mimics the front covered porch of the house. • The windows and French doors at the Juliet balcony will be Andersen E Series aluminum clad wood windows in Forest green to match the green windows on the house. • On the covered porch the two wood doors into the garage and entry hallway will be Therma-tru smooth star fiberglass painted green. • The two overhead garage doors are Clopay coachman style with a mahogany composite finish in a dark stain. • The railing on the Juliet balcony is TimberTech composite with a cable rail infill. • The siding is James Hardie Smooth lap siding painted to match the color of the house. • The small hand railing on the covered porch is Fypon classic balusters and a handrail and newel post to match the covered porch on the front of the house. • Decking on the covered porch and Juliet balcony will be Trex Transcend Lineage. • Exposed foundation on the south, east and west clad in Thin Stone granite from Champlain Stone. • Light fixture – pendant for the covered porch & an arm version for above the garage doors above the Juliet balcony – the same colors as what’s on the existing house. Tamie said the changes are appropriate and compatible and really well done. She asked for clarification of the Fypon baluster. Shawn said it’s a polyurethane similar to Azek. Tamie said she would not approve any vinyl products, but fiber cement and composite materials are acceptable on new construction. She encouraged the applicant to reconsider using Trex decking. Shawn said the client requested the Trex because they have two small areas at the back of the house that have Trex already. Geoff said he liked the prior design and liked this design even better. It’s an overall improvement to the appearance of the building. Rob said it’s perfectly compatible and noted that you won’t see the Trex from the street at all, it’s at the rear of the property and will only be seen by the people who live in the house. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 13 of 16 Chris agreed but asked why they wouldn’t use a square wood baluster with a 2 by 2 simple railing. For the amount of Trex they’re using why not go with Ipe decking; the price isn’t any different. Especially because the brackets will be wood. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the application and there were none. Geoff Wood made a motion to approve the construction at 151 Van Dam with the exception of the porch details. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y. 4-0 in favor. Motion carried. 15. #20250724 176 Lake Ave. Mountons United LLC Demolition & Construction. Determination of significance and discussion of demolition of an existing garage, discussion of new parking area and ADA compliant ramp to an existing structure within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this is a three-step process; the board needs to look at the structure and determine significance. 2. Depending on the significance determination they will move forward with a discussion about demolition or require additional information from the applicant. 3. After demolition discussion then talk about what’s being proposed. Randall Williams represented the application and said he is not aware of any historical significance. The garage has a more modern door and vinyl siding and was remodeled in the past. It’s a one and a half car garage originally built as a shed garage and was reframed and modernized to what you see today. Randall showed photos of the existing garage. There’s a dentist’s office on the first floor of the main structure at 176 Lake and a seasonal rental on the second floor. The existing garage does not serve a purpose for either of those rentals and the dentist’s office needs a larger parking lot for the parking/driving safety of the patients. The parking lot would allow them to pull in and park and turn around to exit driving forward instead of backing onto the street. The foundation is a slab on grade with concrete block around the perimeter. Tamie said the Preservation Foundation noted that the structure has been there since between 1926 and 1948. It seems like it has lost its original character, with vinyl siding, an asphalt roof and what appears to be a fiberglass door. It doesn’t appear to qualify as being architecturally or historically significant despite its age. Chris agreed with Tamie, but this is a residential neighborhood that just happens to have a business being operated out of the main building. By removing the garage and adding a parking lot the residential fabric of the neighborhood will change. It would be a detriment to the historic neighborhood. The garage has significance in what it serves as. Rob said the structure does not appear to have any architectural significance. It’s likely the garage was constructed closer to 1948 because the structure shown on the Sanborn map in 1926 is directly behind the house and not in this same location. Rob walked around the garage and determined that it had little original integrity left with the exception of three historic windows, one on the front and two on the back, that are in City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 14 of 16 excellent condition. Due to the changes that have taken place he doesn’t find the structure to have historic significance. Geoff agrees that due to the structure being modernized with the change in the roof line, siding and roof materials there’s not much left that’s historic except three windows. He agreed that there are accessory structures in the neighborhood, and a parking lot would change the character of the neighborhood. Geoff said he’s leaning toward the building not being architecturally or historically significant. The fact that there is a building there and the removal affects the use of the property, it should be a consideration, but it doesn’t seem like that is what is being asked of the board tonight. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience regarding the historical significance of the structure. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the Foundation has identified historic accessory structures in general of being endangered, they would not be supportive of its demolition. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said it appears that the vote would be 3 to 1 in favor of no historic or architectural significance, but the applicant needs four votes to move the project forward. If a vote were to be taken tonight it would be invalid. The applicant will return to the next meeting on September 24th for a vote of the full board. 16. #20250739 165 Phila St. roof replacement. Historic Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3). Tamie Ehinger disclosed that she works with Peerless Management in her role on the HOA of a building she owns. Matthew Fortier, Benson Contracting and Mike Scuola, Peerless Management represented the application. Matthew said their application for replacement roof shingles was denied as an unacceptable replacement for the current slate and shingles on the roof. The main roof is half asphalt shingles and half slate. Matthew does slate repairs and replacements and in his opinion this roof is beyond repair. Typically, the slate doesn’t fail but the nails get rusty and break, and the tiles begin to slide and shift and drop down. The natural stone slate is very expensive because it’s labor intensive to install. Mike gave some background on the structure saying he’s managed this property for several years. The original owner passed away and the property was passed on to his daughter who is updating the entire roof system. Matthew said functionally the roof is beyond repair. He noted that designer shingles have been used on many roofs in Saratoga. They are heavier, last longer than regular shingles, and would be reasonably affordable. Tamie said the board needs to determine if the roof really needs to be replaced or if it could be repaired. If it needs replacement then the appropriate materials are required. The images presented adequately show that the slate roof is not reparable. Tamie read from the city’s historic guidelines, which are also guidelines used throughout the United City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 15 of 16 States. “Roofs are an important character defining feature of a building. Roofs shape; materials and details contribute to the historic character and significance of the structure. Roof form in the pattern, scale, color and texture of roofing materials are important visual features of historic buildings.” “Roofs should be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. If replacement is necessary the roof should match the original design, size, shape, material, texture or should be based on historic evidence.” A slate roof should be replaced with a slate roof, but the board understands there are many homeowners who cannot afford slate because it’s very expensive. There was a discussion about designer shingles. They are a heavy duty, thicker asphalt shingle that can withstand harder impact, last longer and have better warrantees. Matthew showed photos of “Armourshake” that would give a historic look. Tamie suggested that the applicant speak with the Preservation Foundation to see if they can get NYS tax credits to help offset the cost of a new slate roof. Tamie asked Matthew if he has worked with a product called TruSlate, and he has not. It’s real slate product that’s designed to be much lighter than regular slate and less labor intensive. She also suggested that the applicant consider “Readyslate”. Chris said TruSlate can be nailed on with a nail gun and that speeds up the process. There’s a project on Excelsior Ave. using that product. Rob agreed that the roof needs to be replaced, and it should be with a slate product. Geoff read from the Historic Preservation Foundation’s letter that “the residence built circa 1874 is a contributing building to the east side historic district and listed in the National Register of historic places. The slate roof is a character defining feature of the house”. The applicant did an excellent job explaining why the roof needs to be replaced. The board understands the cost issue but that doesn’t allow the DRB to deviate from the standards; the roof should be replaced with slate. He would not support the use of asphalt as a replacement. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said that slate is a character defining feature of the home. A thin slate product would be okay, but a potential compromise may be to put slate on the front main roof and an asphalt product on the two rear sections that are not visible from the street. She said the tax credit may only apply to owner-occupied residences but is willing to discuss further with the applicant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the roof can be replaced and suggested they look at the TruSlate and Readyslate product and return with samples of what’s being proposed. The applicant should also consider what was proposed by the Foundation. Matthew asked if they could also replace the snow slides. Tamie said yes, it would be recommended. Rob DuBoff 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 City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 16 of 16 MINUTES APPROVED ON OCTOBER 29, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 10, 2025 - Page 17 of 16