Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 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 6:00 P.M. PRESENT: Tamie Ehinger, Chair, Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair, Chris Bennett, Geoff Wood, Allie Dockum ABSENT: J. Gritsavage STAFF: Susan Barden, City Planner, Julia Destino, City Planner. A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Rob DuBoff made a motion to accept the minutes from July 30, 2025. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: R. DuBoff-Y, T. Ehinger-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood- Y, A. Dockum-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 5-0 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. #20250780 11 Hamstead PI N#101 A+ Nails and Spa Exterior modification. Architectural review of exterior modifications – ventilation system to an existing structure within the Neighborhood Center (NC) District. 2. #20250781 176 Lake Ave – Lake Periodontics. Architectural review of a free-standing sign within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 3. #20250782 63 Putnam St. Saratoga Escape Rooms Signage. Historic Review of unlit wall signage within the Urban Core (UC) District. 4. #20250784 13 Lakewood Dr. Verizon Utility Pole. Architectural review of colocation of a utility pole and wireless equipment in the right of way within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District. 5. #20250340 151 Van Dam St. Demolition and Construction. Architectural Review of porch material details on new construction of a two story, two car garage within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the board or audience regarding the consent agenda items and there were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 11 Hamstead PI N#101 A+ Nails and Spa exterior modification, 176 Lake Ave. Lake Periodontics Signage, 63 Putnam St. Saratoga Escape Rooms Signage, 13 Lakewood Dr. Verizon Utility Pole, 151 Van Dam 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, A. Dockum-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 5. #2025-1 UDO Text Amendment-Commercial Mixed-Use District Development Bonus. Consideration of advisory Opinion to the City Council for a proposed UDO Text amendment to the process for determination of compliance with development bonus action. 6. #20241018 NYS Route 29 Prime Station Lane Site Plan. Advisory opinion to the planning board concerning a mixed-use project consisting of a hotel and a total of 400 dwelling units in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. 7. #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. 8. #20250625 106 Van Dam St. Exterior Modifications. Determination of significance, discussion of demolition and reconstruction of an existing front porch within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 9. #20250739 165 Phila St. roof replacement. Historic Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3). __________________________________________________ 5. #2025-1 UDO Text Amendment-Commercial Mixed-Use District Development Bonus. Consideration of advisory Opinion to the City Council for a proposed UDO Text amendment to the process for determination of compliance with development bonus action. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked Susan to review the change. Susan said it’s a requested change for the height bonus and bonus actions in Article 4 of the UDO. The proposed change is based on the outcome of a discussion between the Chairs of the Design Review Board and the Planning Board to amend the process. Currently in the UDO the DRB determines the appropriate height of a structure where a height bonus has been requested. Following partial mass and scale approval the applicant goes to the PB for City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 2 of 9 the actual bonus action proposed (for affordable housing, energy efficiency or community space). The suggestion for the text amendment is that instead of the planning board determining the bonus action, that the zoning officer could do that calculation and come up with the appropriate additional height for the project. The Planning Board would be replaced with Code Administrator (zoning officer) who would determine the appropriateness of the bonus action. The Planning Board is also reviewing the text amendment and staff are proposing that the City Council table the procedural change until this section of the UDO can be significantly reviewed for the actual bonus actions. Tamie suggested that the change is good because it simplifies the process and adds clarity and definition to height bonuses. She agreed with Susan that this is an opportunity for the DRB to include some additional changes that the board has been discussing for a while. Tamie suggested the board move forward with a favorable advisory opinion with the notation that the City Council consider tabling the vote on the amendment until further information is provided. Chris suggested that the city should do away with the energy-efficiency component of the bonus action because it's already being met by builders, and to only allow one specifically for affordable housing. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience, and there were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion for a favorable advisory opinion to the City Council for a proposed UDO Text amendment to the process for determination of compliance with development bonus action within the City of Saratoga Springs, NY. The Design Review Board recommends that the City Council consider tabling the amendment to a future date to allow planning staff an opportunity to review the current bonus actions for possible changes to the incentives for a height bonus. The motion was seconded by Rob DuBoff. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 6. #20241018 NYS Route 29 Prime Station Lane Site Plan. Advisory opinion to the planning board concerning a mixed-use project consisting of a hotel and a total of 400 dwelling units in the Neighborhood Commercial (T-5) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the Planning Board is asking for an opinion on height, mass and scale of what’s being proposed. James Easton, EP Land Services Civil Engineer and Swetlana Stief, Mackenzie Architects represented the applicant. The project was previously designed 10 years ago and was going through the process with the city with a SEQRA determination. The project was halted, Prime Companies purchased the property a few years ago when the UDO came into effect, and the project has evolved to what is being presented tonight. When the project was before the Planning Board they requested a boulevard for the city street separation for the project. There are two main frontages, Station Lane and Route 29/Washington. Under the UDO both streets are frontages and 70% buildout is required. In working up their sketches with the Planning Board they could not provide City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 3 of 9 70% buildout on Station Lane because of wetlands and the buffer required by the UDO. An area variance was required. They considered building out 70% along Route 29 but because of the steep change in elevation it would not be feasible. This also requires an area variance. Together with the Planning Board they focused on the boulevard having 70% buildout per UDO. Prime Companies acquired two lots for a hotel next to the Entrada building. The aerial rendering shows two, 4-story multi-family buildings with a parking lot in the basement area. They are proposing 40 row houses (4-6 plex) with the garages facing the rear per the UDO and main buildings facing toward the road. The engineering and stormwater plans are currently being reviewed. Swetlana discussed the aerial rendering: the two H-shaped buildings will be connected with a courtyard. The row housing is on both sides, and the hotel is on the lower right corner of the rendering. They drew inspiration for the design from the City’s historic architecture; rooflines similar to the Racetrack Grandstand, and stone, shakes and arches. The main entrance is highlighted by an entry volume clad in textured stone veneer and defined by an archway. The rendering shows how they break up the massing into smaller sections by changing the materials and the roof shapes and projecting volumes. The main body of the building is board and batten, stone veneer at the base and around the entry, and light gray shingles highlight the projecting volumes to give the façade more texture. The courtyard is designed to create a community centered space that encourages residents to interact with each other. Opposite the courtyard is a pool area with cabanas and a pool house. The townhomes will have the same exterior materials as the two main buildings. The two garage entries are tucked behind the main building line to keep the streetscape pedestrian friendly. The materials proposed are shingled siding, board and batten, engineered wood siding with brick veneer for the entrances and base, stone for the details around the archway and parapet, a concrete stair with white metal railings, and dark grey asphalt shingles for the roof. Tamie Ehinger, Chair explained that the DRB is tasked with determining if the mass and scale such as the height, proportion, street orientation, contextual appropriateness, setbacks, step backs, entrances, pedestrian engagement, fenestration, materials, etc. are appropriate. She reminded the board that the Planning Board has asked for an advisory opinion on mass, scale and height and that’s what they should focus on at this time. Tamie said regarding contextual appropriateness; the multi-families are much too large and imposing and too tall. It’s basically five stories with a hip roof which adds even more height. The Entrada is three stories in the front and four stories in the back near Station Lane. The row houses are appropriate for mass and scale. She suggested the applicant significantly reduce the size of the multi-family buildings. Swetlana noted that they are within 50 ft. Tamie agreed but the buildings are not appropriate. Rob asked if there was a rendering for hotel. James said they could provide a standard prototypical building, but they don’t have anything yet, just a 4-story place holder. He noted that it will meet the same architectural style as the apartment buildings. Rob asked what the grade change is to the apartment building from Washington. James said the building will appear to be about 3 to 3.5 stories from Washington. The elevation is currently 12 ft. but City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 4 of 9 after filling it will be 7 ft. The wooded buffer on Route 29 will remain. Rob said he would like to render an opinion once the hotel details are presented to the board. Chris agreed with Tamie that the massing is extensive. He said it reads like a resort more than residential housing. He suggested a brick structure might look more residential and last longer than some of the products that are being proposed and are in use today. The proposed products will likely need a lot of maintenance in 10 or 15 years. James said he needs to meet 70% buildout along the frontage and asked if it’s more the height aspect or length aspect that the board objects to. If the footprint is reduced from 70% they will need a variance. Allie said she appreciates that they included parts of Saratoga in their design. Overall, the size is too big. Geoff said it’s the height that he’s most concerned about; what will it look like to the majority of the public. A visual from the street entrance and from the intersection at the top of the hill would be helpful. He agreed with other board members’ comments about the hotel. Tamie agreed that what can be seen from Washington is relevant but it’s more than just the view from Route 29, they have to look at it from the neighborhood. The layout and footprint seem fine; the height is her concern. Rob said he’s not concerned with height of the building it’s more the overall mass. It’s not in a neighborhood and the row houses will separate it from Entrada. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments on the mass, height and scale of the proposed project, and there were none. There was a discussion as to whether the DRB opinion should be tabled or a negative opinion be rendered. James said he would prefer to table the advisory opinion and return with a rendering of the hotel and provide additional information about the height of the building along the boulevard in a revised presentation at the next meeting. 7. #20250625 106 Van Dam St. Exterior Modifications. Determination of significance, discussion of demolition and reconstruction of an existing front porch within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie said she and Julia spoke with Connor Bryant in the building department and because of the extent of the work that’s being proposed to the porch it will be considered a demolition, and the board will have to issue a determination of significance. Based on that determination there will be a discussion on demolition or additional documentation will be required from the applicant to allow for a discussion on demolition. Ryan Burke, owner said he spoke with Samantha Bosshart from the Preservation Foundation, and she determined that the porch is not an original component of the building. The building was erected about 1880, and the porch was built between 1900 and 1905. The porch is dilapidated, on a slope and is sinking into the earth. The stairs are rotting away and are an eyesore. The shingles on the porch are rotting away. Ryan City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 5 of 9 said they would like to fix up the porch with natural wood and add a porch swing. They would like to remove the shingles that box in the porch and open it up with balusters. Tamie said the porch has been there since the early 1900’s on that footprint which makes it historically significant in her opinion. While the porch is dilapidated and needs significant repair, it’s historically significant. The shingled skirting is a feature that’s still intact but needs some work. The scupper and other porch features have lasted for over a century. Chris said the porch is a character defining feature of the house and similar to what’s next door. With new shingles, decking, etc., the porch could be restored in the same style. It is historically significant. Rob said the porch is over 100 years old and speaks to a very specific architectural style that was only constructed in the first 30 to 40 years of the 20th century. He considers it historically and potentially architecturally significant. Allie agreed that it is historically significant especially because of the similarities with the porch next door. She respects the want/need for a bigger porch and porch swing. She suggested possibly matching the significance and charm of the house next door and making it bigger to function better for the applicant. Geoff said he agrees with his fellow board members except that he doesn’t necessarily equate age with significance. It’s about age and the character defining features. He finds at the very least the porch is architecturally significant. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience regarding the historical or architectural significance of the porch. Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the porch has significance because of architectural style and when it was built. Tamie Ehinger made a motion determining that the porch at 106 Van Dam St. is historically and architecturally significant. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger, Chair offered the applicant the following options: • If the applicant pursues demolition, they will need to talk with Julia and Susan about providing good faith documentation. Tamie cautioned the applicant that this might be difficult to do. • Discuss restoring the porch which will involve making some changes to what’s currently being proposed. Ryan said he would like to talk about restoration and showed a rendering of what he envisioned for the porch. Chris restores old porches and has some suggestions for the applicant: Add a new fir ceiling; wood shingle siding with a natural fir cap and run the posts up from there; run fir, mahogany or Sapele (will hold up much better) decking. The framing and the footers will have to be done over with new shingles. The glass windows on the porch were added and can be removed. A fir or mahogany cap on top of the wall with the posts on top would look great. Chris said currently the shingles run to the ground, but they could stop at the deck with lattice below. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 6 of 9 Rob and Tamie said that the applicant should restore what’s there. Tamie said she’s not opposed to the lattice skirting below but it needs to be wood and square versus diagonal. Chris said there’s a house on Lake Ave. just before Pinewood on the left with a similar porch the applicant could look at for restoration ideas. Tamie suggested that the windows on the porch be upcycled and that the Preservation Foundation may have some ideas. The materials are spot on with all wood all natural materials. Allie agreed with removing the windows and restoring the porch. Geoff noted that whatever is salvageable should be kept. The roof is currently rusty metal, and the applicant is proposing asphalt shingle. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if the board agreed to approve the proposal with material details to be handled administratively, and they all consented. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment on the restoration of the porch. There were none. Chris said it appears that asphalt shingles won’t work on the porch roof because the pitch is very low. Likely a roofer will recommend a black rubber EPDM roof. He also recommended Intellideck. Rob asked if the siding on the house was previously approved. Julia said when the applicant originally submitted their siding application the photos showed only wood and Tyvek. The applicant said it had been vinyl siding but there were no photos showing that. He has now shown photos of the house completely sided in vinyl and is seeking replacement in-kind. Rob said that based on the UDO, siding in the architectural district is not subject to replacement in-kind, and siding replacement in general does not require a building permit and is not subject to review. For consistency purposes the language is problematic in the UDO and needs to be worked on. Tamie Ehinger made a motion approving exterior modifications at 106 Van Dam St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1.The porch be restored in-kind with an option of using a wood, square lattice skirting, owners’ discretion. 2. The applicant may use an asphalt shingle roof or EDPM roof, at owners’ discretion after speaking with contractor. 3. All material details to be submitted administratively for final review. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett- Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 8. #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 Unlimited represented the applicant and updated the board on the changes from the last meeting: • Increased the verticality of the house by going from a 9 ft. first floor plate to a 10 ft. plate. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 7 of 9  • Added brick piers with lattice. • Added double front doors to enhance the house's presence as suggested. • Improved the fenestration on all sides of the house – windows better aligned. • The decorative brackets are much smaller. • The front top left bay window was redesigned - more shallow and wider, not sided just trimmed white on white. • Added a foundation under the chimney. • Made the windows longer in the bay in the dining room, windows now double hung with panels below. • Pulled the garage to the setback locating it closer to the alley. Bob stated the applicant previously sought permission to demolish the existing garage. Following the meeting, a gentleman who is under contract to purchase 172 Caroline (the house that the garage belongs to) said he would love to have the primary structure of the garage so it’s being relocated to lot 1 where they have an approved curb cut and driveway leading to the garage. There are now no permeability or coverage concerns. The materials on the house will be fiber cement with aluminum clad windows with divided light, architectural shingles for the roof. Tamie asked what the setback is from the garage to the alley. Bob said it’s 25’, the setback by zoning. Geoff said Bob referred to a “detached” garage in his presentation which can be 5 ft. from the property line. The garage will be attached to the house with a breezeway so it’s an attached garage. Geoff would prefer to see a detached garage brought closer to the alley to keep in character with the neighborhood. Tamie agreed that she would like to see the breezeway eliminated and the garage be a detached garage moved closer to the alley. Chris said overall he supports the project with the breezeway attached to the garage. Rob said it reads as an attached garage, and he can’t support that. He asked the architect to look at how the roof is angled around the bays on the house and how they’re constructed to make sure they’re compatible with similar design elements on other structures in the neighborhood. Allie said she likes the addition of the double door. She suggested adding something to the peak of the house in the front. She agrees with having the detached garage on the alley. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to comment. Charles Pritchard, owner asked if they could put the garage where the existing garage is now. The board said that it would be fine. Charles said they’d detach it. Following a discussion on how far off the alley the garage should be to accommodate a parked car but bring it closer into character, a compromise was met at a distance of 18 ft. from the rear property line. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 8 of 9 Samantha Bosshart, Saratoga Springs Preservation said she appreciated that the applicant met with the Foundation to review the plans and that they considered the feedback provided. It resulted in a better project. They’re really pleased that the existing garage will be relocated and the compromise for the new detached garage of 18 ft. is a good solution. Rob DuBoff made a motion for the project at 172 Caroline St., Lot 2 demolition and construction, approving construction with the following conditions: 1. Smooth cement board siding without a grain to be used. 2. The garage will be detached and located 18 ft. from the rear property line without a connector to the main house. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood- Y, A. Dockum-Y. 5-0 in favor. Motion carried. 9. #20250739 165 Phila St. roof replacement. Historic Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3). Tabled, not present. Rob DuBoff made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Allie Dockum. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON OCTOBER 29, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – September 24, 2025 - Page 9 of 9