Design Review Board

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES FINAL WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 15, 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, Leslie DiCarlo, Chris Bennett, Geoff Wood, Allie Dockum, Jeff Gritsavage, Karen Cavotta ABSENT: Rob DuBoff, Co-Chair. STAFF: Julia Destino, City Planner, Tony Izzo, A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: Tabled 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. #20250830 292 Lake Ave. Exterior Modification-Heat Pump. Architectural Review of equipment installation within the Urban Residential -1 (UR-1) District. 2. #20250847 231 Lake Ave. Architectural review of roof replacement within the Institutional Education (NST-ED) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the Board or audience regarding the consent agenda items. There were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve the applications for 292 Lake Ave. Exterior Modification-Heat Pump and 231 Lake Ave. Architectural Review of roof replacement, Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger- Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m. 3. #20250531 172 Caroline St. Lot 2 Demolition and Construction. Partial demolition and relocation of an existing two-car garage within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve demolition of the shed addition, the exterior stairs and the side entry only at 172 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve relocation of an existing two-car garage at 172 Caroline St., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following condition: that the recipient of the garage is to submit a plan for final relocation approval to the Design Review Board prior to receiving a building permit. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 4. #20250843 69 Union Ave. Exterior Modification. Historic Review of fence replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. 5. #20250739 165 Phila St. roof replacement. Historic Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3). 6. #20250449 9 Spa Circle Construction. Architectural Review of exterior modifications to an existing structure in the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District. 7. #20250783 60 Woodlawn Ave. Exterior modifications to an existing structure within the within the Urban Core (UC/T-6) District. __________________________________________________ 4. #20250843 69 Union Ave. Exterior Modification. Historic Review of fence replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District. Tamie Ehinger, Chair said this was originally on the consent agenda, but the board wanted some additional details on the fencing. Michelle and David Brandriss, owners represented the application. Michelle said the gate at the frontage on Union Ave. was missing when they originally purchased the house. They believe it was a two-door swinging gate that fit within a 10 ft. span. They will keep the lamp and look for replacement glass. For the gate at the back of the house they would like to install a 4 ft. gate for additional security with a puppy picket down low. Tammie said the height of the fence and the gate as well as the materials being proposed are appropriate. She suggested that the small historic fence that ran along the back and has been saved, be reused or donated to an organization that would reuse it. Chris asked if all of the fencing was being removed and if they knew the history. Michelle said they do not know the history of the fencing, but they are willing to donate City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 2 of 9 it all. Jeff suggested the Albany Parts Warehouse and/or the Historic Preservation Foundation. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience and there were none. Tamie Ehinger made a motion to approve exterior modifications at 69 Union Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the condition that the existing fence be used, upcycled, or donated. The Design Review Board has suggested that the applicant connects with the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. The motion was seconded by Leslie DiCarlo. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. 5. #20250449 9 Spa Circle Construction. Architectural Review of exterior modifications to an existing structure in the Urban Neighborhood (UN/T-4) District. Mike and Melissa King, owners represented the application. The applicants were not speaking into the mic. Some details were not audible, but I’ll list what was on the slide presentation: • Add foyer to join structures and create a logical “front of the house”. Rebuild the porch. • Add windows to improve existing window symmetry and increase sunlight into the house. • Minimize exterior alterations. • Maintain Slick Victorian vibe – eaves, overhangs, etc. • Showed rendering of the proposed east/front/Spa Circle side of the house with a new gable peak, window openings in a traditional pattern, new foyer and porch. Tamie said the onsite visit was really important for the board to get a better understanding of the project. The city’s guidelines are clear about moving historic windows on a historic façade. In this case, what was the original rear of the house is now the front of the house. The current rear is the original front. There have been multiple additions to the house at various times. It’s a historic home in a very non- historic, humble neighborhood and in an architectural district versus a historic district. Tamie said her comments would be very different if this home was in a historic district in a different neighborhood. She asked Karen Cavotta to speak first because she noticed things during the site visit that are very enlightening and will help with further board discussion. Karen thanked the applicant for allowing the board to do a site visit. One key thing that she noticed was that what was the back of the house (now the front) was not the original back; about eight feet were added to the original back of the house. She said even the bay window on the upper left-hand side is not original to the house. The true original part of the house is on the other side and wraps partially around the side. It’s doubtful that the bay window on the other side of the house is original because there’s no foundation underneath. None of the materials are historic on the now front side of the house, the board will basically be considering a new house. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 3 of 9 Discussion on the front façade: Tamie said the changes to the garage, which is not historic, are appropriate. She doesn’t have concerns about the changes being made to what was an addition off the back of a historic house. She asked the applicant to explain the design for the bottom sashes of the 3 windows proposed for the second floor. Melissa said those windows don’t go into the house; it’s a back staircase. They’re adding the vertical trim on the bottom to help the window pop out. Tamie said the board will need specific details moving forward, materials, etc. Karen said the changes to the windows will create a more balanced look with traditional spacing. She’s not sure about the panel on the bottom of the upper windows but suggested it should tie in vertically with whatever they decide for the porch siding. Karen questioned the lack of rails on the porch and was told they are only required if the porch is higher than 30 inches. She likes the foyer connection but feels the glass door doesn’t make a statement as an entry door. Jeff agreed with the removal of the Prairie-style windows on the second floor. He suggested a fixed pane of glass with awnings on the top for ventilation that would simulate a double hung window. He said geometrically the gable doesn’t work and he would need details on their proposal. It’s a modern take on a historic house. The window appears to be square. Mike said it will be 4 ft. high by 3 ft. wide. Mike said the new roof on the porch will be standing seam and the rafter tails could be added. It is on a cul-de-sac, so it won’t be real visible. Geoff liked the changes they made with the window locations and sizes. He agreed with Karen regarding the front door and suggested wood would look better. Leslie said there will need to be railings along the stairs and the board will need those details. She’s concerned that the windows on the second floor will look square from the street but it’s not inappropriate enough to not approve it. She likes the arched connector between the house and the garage, which is very contemporary, so additional contemporary details on that façade would be appropriate. Allie said she likes the porch and attached foyer to keep people out of the elements. Nice job! Chris agreed with Karen about the front door and is okay with the vertical panels on the porch and windows because it has low visibility. Mike said they will be contrasting the siding and trim colors to break it up. Chris suggested using iron for the staircase rail. Geoff suggested making the second-floor windows 2/3 glass and 1/3 solid panel. Side/south façade: Melissa noted that this side of the house receives the most sunlight, so they want to install more windows to increase natural light and warmth. The lower bay windows cover an arch that they are proposing to reveal and recreate it the way it was formerly exposed. It will be the centerpiece for the inside as well as their outdoor entertaining area. They think there's brick under the siding and plan to restore it. They will be adding French sliders on the porch. This plan shows the back of the new entryway, and they will have doors that open out onto a gradual set of stairs (because it’s 4 ft. higher). Tamie said she has no concerns with what they’re doing with the garage and the addition of the three windows where the bay was. She noted that the arched window is original on the inside of the house and is happy to see they want to restore the outside. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 4 of 9 Tamie asked if they plan on keeping the original glass. Melissa said they want to recreate it using insulated 21st century glass. Tamie said those are some of the few historic windows left on the structure so she would have concerns with replacing them. They need to be retained. The French sliders on the porch are fine. The three windows above the porch may be a concern. Chris said because there are so few historic windows left he would rather see uniformity and symmetry in the architecture. Allie had concerns about the various window shapes. Mike said they’re all the same size, but the rendering is off. Leslie suggested that they keep the windows the same where the arch is and opt for some good storm windows. Karen said she likes the idea of restoring the historic arched window and exposing the brick. She’s not sure about the triple windows above the porch and the French sliders. Jeff said there’s no precedent for the triple ganged windows over the porch. If they had to make a change it would look much better with a set of double windows – two windows with a mullion in between. Geoff said he agrees with other board members’ comments but would approve what’s being proposed because this is architectural review and it’s not highly visible. He’s okay with replacing the windows in the arch. West side facing Ballston Ave.: Mike said the porch was added in 2006. They are proposing to add panels to the bottom of the two windows on the second floor and make the windows larger with panel bottoms in the gable. Tamie said she was very pleased with the changes and appreciates that they took the board’s feedback into consideration. The addition of the panels at the bottom of the windows in the gable is a good solution. Tamie said she very much appreciates how the presentation shows the existing house on one side and future on the other: it’s very helpful for the board to understand the changes. Geoff suggested that if they change the proportion of glass to panel on the front then they should do the same on the back. Jeff said modifying fenestrations for the interior programming flies in the face of everything the DRB does. He doesn’t think it works and he wouldn’t approve of it. Karen agreed that smaller panels in the windows would give them more verticality. Leslie asked why they’re cutting the windows in half in the gable. Mike said they don’t get a lot of light on this façade because of the large trees and it faces south and west. Allie suggested that they put this into Chat GBT and get a visual of what it will look like. Chris said it would look better if the windows were more vertical by making the panels smaller. Geoff asked if the DRB has to deem this historically significant. Tamie said no because it doesn’t involve a demolition and it’s not in a historic district. North side of the house: City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 5 of 9 Melissa said there aren’t many changes to this façade, but they will be repeating what’s happening in the “band” all around the house, so they have some consistency. They will be replacing the window on the lower left first floor. Tamie said she’s happy to see them replacing the window and bringing it back to the original size. Karen noted that all of the windows should retain the thickness of the center trim. The applicants will be keeping that the same size. Karen said it would be helpful to show one complete drawing showing what it will look like for all of the windows. Jeff suggested when they install the new window to the original size they should get it custom made to fit. It has a brick casing so it should be filled with a custom-sized window. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized as follows: • Overall, the Board is happy with the direction the project has taken since it was first proposed, and she hopes the Board’s feedback was helpful. • Front Façade – need details on the stair railings. Feedback regarding the entry door being solid; maybe transoms or not entirely glass. Panel beneath the front windows and around the structure – 5 board members are comfortable with the panels, 2 are not but the proportion of glass to panel should be considered. • South side – Leslie, Jeff & Tamie want the original glass kept on the arched window. The remaining board members were okay with it being switched out. The majority of the Board is not in favor of the new triple windows above the porch. • West side – Ballston Ave. – proportions of glass versus paneling. The majority of the board was okay with the changes. • Rear – no concerns. 6. #20250739 165 Phila St. roof replacement. Historic Review of a roof replacement within the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3). Tamie Ehinger, Chair said the applicant was before the board a few meetings ago talking about roof replacement at 165 Phila St. The Board suggested that other slate products be considered by the applicants and they have returned with a new proposal. Matthew Fortier, Bensen Contracting represented the applicant. He said the TruSlate has been discontinued. Readyslate is in a legal battle with the company that makes the backer to the product. It will be about 3 months before they start manufacturing with a new company. Matthew said his company doesn’t feel comfortable using their slate even once it comes back into production because of the issues they’ve had, and it hasn’t been field tested. They have decided to proceed with traditional slate on the main section of 165 Phila and GAF slate line for the back portions of the roof (the Foundation was least opposed to this product). They will keep the metal snow slides and metal ridges, and the flashing on the asphalt will match what’s used on the slate. Tamie explained that when an applicant comes before the DRB for the wholesale replacement City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 6 of 9 of a roof, they need to show that the roof cannot be repaired and has to be replaced. This applicant has demonstrated that this roof does need to be replaced. The Board is pleased with having slate on the bulk of the home and asphalt on the additions. The side porch that faces the driveway will have GAF Slate line on the roof. Tamie said slate roof replacement is a very important element in a historic home. She’s pleased that the bulk of this home will have real slate roof replacement and she’s comfortable with the particular asphalt they’ve chosen for the remainder of the roof. Matthew said the flat membrane roof on the back of the house will be replaced with EPDM rubber roof. The board members were pleased with the solution and thanked the applicant for looking into the other products that were suggested by them. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any comments from the audience. There were none. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve roof replacement at 165 Phila St., Saratoga Springs, NY. The motion was seconded by Geoff Wood. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Matthew demonstrated some slate-like products (Armourshake) for the board to consider for future homeowners with decaying slate roofs. This information has also been provided to the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation. 7. #20250783 60 Woodlawn Ave. Architectural Review of Exterior modifications to an existing structure within the Urban Core (UC/T-6) District. Scott Wallant, Architect represented the applicant who has returned with changes based on DRB comments from the last meeting: • West/front elevation All existing arch openings will have new aluminum-clad wood windows. They propose to use new good quality composite fixed shutters properly sized and made out of a more durable product than wood. The windows will be all custom made to fit the arches. All of the existing windows are vinyl and the wrong sizes, and the existing shutters are the wrong size. • North side adding 2 windows on the first floor. The brick work and arches will be identical to the other existing windows – arched rowlock over the header, etc. • South edge of west elevation - they will replace the roof over the covered walkway with a reverse curved arch roof and create a seamless arched opening. The offices are accessible through this archway. • The brick is dilapidated and needs to be re-pointed, and they are looking to paint or stain the brick so that it ultimately looks seamless. • The stone foundation is currently stucco but that will be removed and cleaned up to reveal the stone. • New walkways leading up to the front entrance will be added. A new stoop is being proposed, and they have a landscaping plan in place. All of the entrances are fully accessible. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 7 of 9  • They are cleaning up the front entrance and would like the entry door to be largely glass within the existing arch. • The two windows being added to the north elevation will face an open yard that can’t be built on because of the property line limitations. • Rear façade – not visible from the street. It will be a landscaping design company. Scott said there’s a beautiful natural landscaping feature in the back; a 3-story wall of ivy. They will be adding more modern large casement windows. It was noted that the back of the building was an addition from the 1960’s-70’s. Tamie said she’s happy that the applicant considered the Board’s suggestions from the last meeting. The structure presents much better from a historical perspective. The new proportionally correct working shutters are great. However, composite material is not appropriate for a historic home; it should be a wood product. The brick color is part of the character of this historic house so she would not support lime washing or painting the brick. On the north elevation, the 2 first floor windows look appropriate aesthetically, but this is adding two openings to a historic façade. The Preservation Foundation is not concerned about the windows being added but she is. The history is that the railway ran very close to the building and in her opinion, adding two windows would alter that history. Geoff said he doesn’t have any concerns about the changes or the addition of the two windows with the exception of the staining of the brick. He would not be in favor of that. The color of the brick is part of the defining character of the building. Jeff said he wouldn’t be opposed to composite shutters as long as they have shutter dogs and hinges that function. He opposes painting the brick. He suggested that the brick arch over the walkway be set back 6” to 12 “. It was an add-on, and it may not integrate well with the face of the building. Karen agreed with Jeff regarding the shutters and arch over the ramp area. Because the arch will be brick and the brick color on the building is being maintained perhaps the arch could be a different material. She said it’s a beautiful building and she appreciates it being restored closer to what it once was. The applicant is amenable to moving the arch back. Leslie agreed with other board members’ comments. She said she’s struggling with having composite shutters and would like to see samples. Allie said the design is very charming and fits well in the neighborhood. Chris agreed with all comments made and likes the 1960’s/70’s design in the back. Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the audience. There were none. Tamie Ehinger, Chair summarized as follows: • The majority of the Board does not have concerns with composite shutters providing working hardware is installed. • The Board is opposed to painting or lime washing the brick. • The arch walkway should be setback allowing the original corner of the house to stand out. The applicant needs to provide new elevation drawings. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 8 of 9  • Six of the board members do not have a concern about the installation of two new windows. • The Board needs to see samples of the materials being used for the shutters. The final drawing showing the course reveal for the archway and the hardware for the shutters will be approved administratively. Leslie DiCarlo made a motion to approve Exterior Modifications to an existing structure at 60 Woodlawn Ave., Saratoga Springs, NY with the following conditions: 1. The brick should be left in its natural state. 2. The arch walkway should be set back by the length of a brick from the front façade. 3. The hardware for the shutters and the final drawing for the archway will be approved administratively. The motion was seconded by Jeff Gritsavage. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, L. DiCarlo-Y, C. Bennett-Y, G. Wood-Y, A. Dockum-Y, K. Cavotta-Y, J. Gritsavage-Y. 7-0 in favor. Motion carried. Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Chris Bennett. All in favor, motion carried. Respectfully submitted by Donna Gizzi, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVED ON DECEMBER 10, 2025. City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – October 15, 2025 - Page 9 of 9