[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6540932,"mediaKeyId","3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e","parentId",3779377,"title","Design board gives guidance, not approval, for major renovation at 9 Spa Circle; members urge preservation of historic windows","audioSeconds",3959,"startMs",7445000,"endMs",11404000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e&start=7445&end=11404","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e/thumbnail_7445000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6540932/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-board-gives-guidance-not-approval-for-major-renovation-at-9-Spa-Circle-members-urge-preservation-of-historic-windows","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540932-242bca9777d64fb4e2d5b699facfdde4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440235&Signature=l3Mp9u4gdX2pLnmh59tdCA2U30JGcEQEH3APRI0IxG3dWSTp9qH5E-dPulGVqHzlxF24oEFKwAFFLnBS33HCZDI1QwIR0tyfZ-Uo~u1SEwl40ET8eslQ28Wb8IJRa1GP9D0YzDHonG2YWxi5MzckWP~qC3hYu9V6rFNtNsHZMI40E8ogt0j2L5EIypuF9EDfFRQHu29ruQP4yHGtT7ikq8UupZGEDQKTltATC9PNGjQ-7HwsA9HytN~jxdsBRdG4-DWNMk7NITxjh1bS3KjhITPLSvmGzFFlrp6WyiJKSBIwxWIAnYsQiYP~QNwBQiU522rBIPzDAZ-Dsl6Uax47oA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-06-11T00:00:00Z","article","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on Wednesday reviewed a substantial renovation and addition at 9 Spa Circle and provided detailed guidance to the owners but did not issue a final approval.

Owners Melissa and Michael King described plans to reorient the historic 1860 house toward Spa Circle, add windows and connect a newer garage structure to create a defined entrance. The board and members of the public raised detailed questions about window types, preservation of original openings and the accuracy of the applicant’s drawings.

Why it matters: 9 Spa Circle is a surviving historic house sited within a modern subdivision; revisions risk removing or obscuring remaining historic fabric. The DRB told applicants to preserve the two remaining original window assemblies and to return with consistent, accurate elevations and materials samples.

Board feedback and public comments
Board members repeatedly stressed that windows and doors are character‑defining features: \"Every effort should be made to maintain and preserve these important features,\" the chair read from the DRB guidelines. Multiple members said any original or historic window openings that remain should be preserved in their current positions rather than permanently removed or replaced by modern configurations. Several board members suggested double‑hung windows would be more appropriate on the historic portion of the house than casement windows proposed in some drawings.

Neighbors joined the discussion in force, expressing concern about scale, loss of green space, and the overall compatibility of the proposed changes with the house’s historic fabric. Several speakers urged retention of the arched top windows in the brick First Floor opening; others asked the applicants to document existing conditions with more accurate drawings and to consider alternatives that preserve fenestration proportions.

Applicant response and next steps
The Kings and their team said the house already has many non‑original vinyl windows and that the team’s priority is to increase daylight and solar gain in interior rooms. The applicants proposed relocating some window openings, enlarging others to accommodate counters or living space, and repurposing stained glass from an interior bay into a new location.

The board asked the applicants to return with corrected, consistent elevations and clearer window schedules showing which windows will be retained, which will be new, and the proposed materials (double hung, casement, sliders, etc.). The chair summarized DRB priorities: maintain the two remaining historic window assemblies and supply accurate drawings before the board can take final action.

Ending
The DRB did not approve the project at the meeting. It offered a path forward: retain remaining historic windows where feasible, provide corrected and consistent architectural drawings and material samples, and then return to the board for a follow‑up hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission - Jun 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Board members and neighbors discussed a large renovation at 9 Spa Circle — the last historic house on a modern street — and the DRB advised keeping remaining historic windows and supplying more accurate drawings; no formal vote was taken.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs City, Saratoga County, New York","taxId",7807,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540938,"Design board approves exterior repairs at 68 Beekman but orders front doors preserved",1232,6196000,7428000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e&start=6196&end=7428","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e/thumbnail_6196000.jpg","/articles/6540938/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-board-approves-exterior-repairs-at-68-Beekman-but-orders-front-doors-preserved","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540938-4f3a8e3a7da9ac3f9fb63f5fd43a2e26/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440235&Signature=bQ8cQfzdxQ838d7R-meMZbyDDXaeQTenMO5-QTyEGeeP7ZIti2uNrz-Yw6xxClYaEGfADJT~-bwcu1RQX~oGPyow3AzYUNfSejNTWuZ2A2j4-U6LkpMHSAd8EEX~DcajFu5jgnfgcOAeI5iUYk6wG5MR0mfM74jbjFLQeRNriHHfzT22e2BtpszTnYJLtkHa6nPVFDcxT9OqnjJykb6M9biI33ne6X9e2B-VA52~AZEtnU5fIw4EWUnL1lE9jbIjGX~zEl4gDprN8vMpc1ugV6YknvBxh82I-qRF-ZGkMHnywCl8xUbtnmF3zqSYGnSF40rfG1AANiIl45jHN~9yag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on Wednesday approved exterior modifications at 68 Beekman Street with conditions that preserve front‑facing historic features.

The applicants — Kelly Mallette (Caveman Construction) and owner Zachary Potry — told the board they planned to replace damaged porch decking and rails, remove an 8-by-8 rear shed, and improve door security. Board members recommended restoring the existing front doors rather than bricking over any openings or replacing the entrance doors with modern steel panels.

Why it matters: The building’s front façade retains historic door and porch elements the DRB considers character‑defining. The board emphasized preservation of those elements when granting approval for more limited exterior repairs.

Board findings and conditions
Board chair and DRB members cited the DRB’s guidelines that \"entrance doors and frames are critically important decorative elements of a historic house\" and urged the applicants to restore rather than remove the doors. The board’s motion required that \"all existing front doors should remain in place and be restored,\" and suggested the left‑side door (which the applicants wanted to close for private club use) be infilled from the interior so the exterior facade remains unchanged.

The board also required that the porch decking and rail replacement use cedar beadboard to match the existing detail and that the rear porch be renovated to replicate the front porch rail pattern. Applicants said they would use Douglas fir decking and cedar railing; they also agreed to repair or replace historic posts that remain in good condition.

Outcome
A motion to approve the project with the conditions listed above passed (motion moved by the chair; seconded by Mr. Duboff). The board explicitly tied approval to preserving the front‑facing doors and historically appropriate porch details.

Ending
The board thanked the applicants for investing in the building and approved the project on the condition that the historic character of the front façade be preserved. The applicants were directed to return with final construction details consistent with the board’s conditions.","The Design Review Board approved exterior renovations at 68 Beekman Street with conditions: retain and restore the three front doors, replicate beadboard cedar porch railing, and renovate the rear porch to match.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540942,"Design board gives favorable advisory opinion for 6‑unit Park Place/Cottage St. project despite neighborhood opposition",2978,2714000,5692000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e&start=2714&end=5692","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e/thumbnail_2714000.jpg","/articles/6540942/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-board-gives-favorable-advisory-opinion-for-6unit-Park-PlaceCottage-St-project-despite-neighborhood-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540942-c414b9b3d47f7a98fd2ba3e0926b6063/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440235&Signature=GA7aVN7Cfc48~gYhhrdvZKwOzSnwK25EzbVye9aruMZl1oquVks9WaHZMmj3-hpxtUv5nG-p81BwWLWIIKW7WwdLnImB9qB-g~Y1bhhhUJQQL-TmlY-tiR9yZeb~vXg6xjH6c2caBanfK7A86AD5VYSkmTiU4~nukMgiPjGMTLjrY5~Cd0UuXhlz5gn2~ob1cgn5Q5bA8F1VYYTCwkVSw0WHLtmTVSSbYvh5ixR6XfXY6Ya7J-d8jA-wSWucdV0YuwQySKxVrsA8Jl3tf-YxiXJORX1LryAD4Um~zmbAApG08d09yeEtD4DqApyemNzraydeEadv09Cg40CmkIwfcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on Wednesday issued a favorable advisory opinion to the Planning Board for a proposed six‑unit, three‑story residential building on Park Place and Cottage Street, while several board members and many neighbors voiced strong objections to the project’s size and neighborhood fit.

The board’s motion, made by the chair and seconded by Mr. Grit Savage, concluded that \"the mass, scale, height and proportion of the proposed new construction is not incompatible with the neighborhood,\" while encouraging the applicant to refine the north elevation and to use high‑quality materials. The chair also noted that additional porches and reworked dormers helped break up the building’s mass.

Why it matters: The project would add a sizable 3‑story structure to a block of smaller houses; neighbors warned it would exacerbate parking congestion, change neighborhood character and cast shadows on nearby yards. The DRB’s advisory opinion goes to the Planning Board, which reviews zoning, traffic, parking and other land‑use controls.

Board and public reactions
During the applicant presentation, architect Matt Herr (Frost Herr Architects) showed revised massing and added stair access to porches; board members said the changes improved the streetscape. Board member comments ranged from supportive — \"the additional staircases and porches break up the mass\" — to explicit opposition: Mr. Duboff said the building \"reads more like an apartment building and not townhomes\" and that he would not give a favorable advisory opinion if the DRB were the final decision maker.

More than a dozen neighbors spoke in opposition. They raised consistent concerns about the building’s long, blank north elevation, the scale relative to adjacent one‑ and two‑story homes, the loss of green space, and the capacity of Cottage Street to accommodate additional parked vehicles and trash/garbage staging. A representative of multiple neighbors said the site was historically a neighborhood green and a playing field, and asked the board to limit density.

Applicant response and board guidance
The applicant provided elevation studies and a three‑dimensional model showing the proposed building in context with adjacent structures. Board members repeatedly stressed the importance of material quality and recommended window and trim detailing on the north elevation to reduce the appearance of an extended, blank façade. The DRB’s favorable opinion included these recommendations and emphasized that materials should \"fit with the quality of the materials in the older homes in the neighborhood.\"

Outcome and next steps
The DRB issued a favorable advisory opinion and transmitted it to the Planning Board for the Planning Board’s land‑use review, while capturing comments about refining the north elevation, porches and materials. The Planning Board retains review authority for traffic, parking, refuse handling and other operational concerns raised repeatedly by neighbors; the DRB emphasized those topics are outside its advisory scope and advised neighbors to raise them at the Planning Board hearings.

Ending
The Planning Board will consider the DRB’s advisory opinion along with the project’s zoning and site plan materials. The DRB’s favorable opinion does not constitute final approval; community members planning to press parking and traffic issues were advised to bring those concerns to the Planning Board.","The Design Review Board issued a favorable advisory opinion to the Planning Board on a six‑unit, three‑story infill project on Park Place and Cottage Street, but several board members and dozens of neighbors criticized the proposal’s massing, scale and likely parking and traffic impacts.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540947,"Saratoga Springs design board approves demolition of small outbuilding at 19 George St., continues debate over proposed garage",2108,576000,2684000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e&start=576&end=2684","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3779377-f2ac4404e0b0530ccd34213f202d8d4e/thumbnail_576000.jpg","/articles/6540947/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Saratoga-Springs-design-board-approves-demolition-of-small-outbuilding-at-19-George-St-continues-debate-over-proposed-garage","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6540947-5ae4aec107858a75fa308b0809e657c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770440235&Signature=oZL6nnQ2YvmRIpCDFZkBLOyCkRzwRwuFk56A0ph70S6UgkyLx2NQK~J90Z-Zl1BmtTPLJ7JVBi1HVHhRIilzL2sDp59ZbwNiMiUDyUmbhL1jvnYo3iYTUUc~aAOLq0l8kmLkDmzojbbgjSlBLWAURZ~p8gY0vemBG0y1x-ukCe0f2vS6un9Ow7E8qNVnzk9gN3jVBEa-01UnPfyusa~5AYb0jv50zy8lPwlU4zWFw~Hvwaun9fHvZwNkGLC1N2CQN6JXhY1SJ4MPb491YTwDNclGYaYy1vhzWomneugNusCxQkwwbDwJKXVsyj7R1ZkdA312gE-rW95RiizKTNSGlA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on Wednesday approved demolition of a small, non‑historic structure at 19 George Street but left the proposed detached garage and driveway plan unresolved.

Board chair (Design Review Board) moved to approve the demolition and the board classified the project as a SEQR Type II action; the motion was seconded by Mr. Bennett and the chair announced, \"All in favor? Any opposed? Alright. That motion passes.\" The board made clear the demolition was treated as separate from the larger construction proposal.

Why it matters: Neighbors and board members urged preservation of mature trees on the property and debated whether the proposed garage location — placed forward to avoid the dripline of a large sugar maple — is consistent with the neighborhood’s historic patterns. Several board members said they prefer garages to be sited to the rear or accessed by an alley when feasible.

Board discussion and public input
Board members repeatedly emphasized that demolition review (a determination of significance) is a distinct step from design review for new construction. The chair said the process is three steps: determine significance, demolish if allowed, then review the new project. Mr. Bennett and other board members reviewed zoning compliance for the proposed driveway placement and highlighted that driveway location is a zoning question separate from DRB design review.

Neighbors and preservation advocates raised concerns about the new garage’s location relative to two large sugar maples on the lot. Tom Denny, who identified himself as having chaired the city’s urban forestry project and the open space advisory committee, warned of construction impacts on mature tree root systems and said, \"No amount of replanting small trees ever replaces that.\" Several neighbors and neighbors’ representatives urged the board to prioritize the trees and to require clearer evidence — such as an arborist survey — before approving a garage footprint that would encroach on the tree canopy.

The applicants and supporters said the design team relocated the garage forward specifically to avoid root disturbance, and the owner’s representatives said they would use construction techniques intended to reduce root damage (for example, using an above‑grade slab). Owner Linda Whittle, who said she and her husband are planning a \"tasteful building compatible\" with the neighborhood, asked the board to consider the full context of nearby homes that already have garages.

Outcome and next steps
The board’s formal action at the meeting was approval of demolition only. The motion (chair moved; Mr. Bennett seconded) referenced SEQR (6 NYCRR part 617) and the Unified Development Ordinance; the board concluded the demolition was exempt from further SEQR review and approved it as presented. The board did not take a final vote on the garage location or the broader construction plans and directed the applicants to return with revisions and additional documentation addressing the board’s comments — especially the tree protection approach, driveway delineation and clearer site plans showing how the driveway and lot coverage will be managed.

The chair closed the item by asking the applicants to \"take the feedback you've heard, go back, sort of think about whether or not there's creative ways you might be able to change your plans to accommodate some of what historic guidelines are for your neighborhood,\" and said the board would continue to work with the applicants in future meetings.

Ending
The demolition approval allows the applicant to remove the small, non‑historic shed; the larger questions about where and how a new garage can be built — and how to protect the sugar maple trees — remain open and will return to the board in a later hearing.","The Design Review Board approved demolition of a non‑historic accessory structure at 19 George Street but did not finalize the new garage design; board members and neighbors sparred over tree preservation, driveway layout and whether the garage should sit at the rear of the lot.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design board gives guidance, not approval, for major renovation at 9 Spa Circle; members urge preservation of historic windows

Design board approves exterior repairs at 68 Beekman but orders front doors preserved

Design board gives favorable advisory opinion for 6‑unit Park Place/Cottage St. project despite neighborhood opposition

Saratoga Springs design board approves demolition of small outbuilding at 19 George St., continues debate over proposed garage