HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250534 169 Union Ave & Morton Pl Area Variance ApplicationRevised 01/2021
APPLICATION FOR:
INTERPRETATION, USE VARIANCE,
AREA VARIANCE AND/OR VARIANCE EXTENSION
APPLICANT(S)* OWNER(S) (If not applicant) ATTORNEY/AGENT
Name
Address
Phone / / /
Email
*An applicant must be the property owner, lessee, or one with an option to lease or purchase the property in question.
Applicant’s interest in the premises: Owner Lessee Under option to lease or purchase
PROPERTY INFORMATION
1.Property Address/Location: Tax Parcel No.: ________.______ - ______ - ______
(for example: 165.52 – 4 – 37 )
2. Date acquired by current owner:3.Zoning District when purchased:
4. Present use of property:5.Current Zoning District:
6. Has a previous ZBA application/appeal been filed for this property?
Yes (when? For what? )
No
7. Is property located within (check all that apply)?: Historic District Architectural Review District
500’ of a State Park, city boundary, or county/state highway?
8. Brief description of proposed action:
Yes No
Yes No
9.Is there an active written violation for this parcel?
10.Has the work, use or occupancy to which this appeal relates already begun?
11.Identify the type of appeal you are requesting (check all that apply):
INTERPRETATION (p. 2) VARIANCE EXTENSION (p. 2) USE VARIANCE (pp. 3-6) AREA VARIANCE (pp. 6-7)
Applicant Owner Attorney/AgentPrimary Contact Person:
**HANDWRITTEN APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED** [FOR OFFICE USE]
_______________
(Application #)
____________
(Date received)
__________________________
(Project Title)
Check if PH Required
Staff Review _______________
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CITY HALL - 474 BROADWAY
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NEW YORK 12866-2296
TEL: 518-587-3550 X2533
www.saratoga-springs.org
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 6
AREA VARIANCE – PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING (add additional information as necessary):
The applicant requests relief from the following Zoning Ordinance article(s)
Dimensional Requirements District Requirement Requested
Other:
To grant an area variance, the ZBA must balance the benefits to the applicant and the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and
community, taking into consideration the following:
1.Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other feasible means. Identify what alternatives to the variance have
been explored (alternative designs, attempts to purchase land, etc.) and why they are not feasible.
2.Whether granting the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. Granting the variance will not create a detriment to nearby properties or an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character for the following reasons:
Revised 01/2021
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION FORM PAGE 7
3.Whether the variance is substantial. The requested variance is not substantial for the following reasons:
4.Whether the variance will have adverse physical or environmental effects on neighborhood or district. The requested variance will not
have an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or district for the following reasons:
5.Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created (although this does not necessarily preclude the granting of an area variance). Explain
whether the alleged difficulty was or was not self-created:
Application to City Council FEE
Comprehensive Plan amendment $1,800 + $300/acre
Zoning Ordinance amendment $800 + $300/acre
Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment $800 + $300/acre
Application to Zoning Board of Appeals
Use Variance $1,400 + $50/app
Area Variance - Residential $350/1st var +$50/app +$150/ea add variance
Area Variance - Non-residential $1000/1st var + $50/app+ $200/ ea add variance
Interpretations $650 + $50/app
Application Fee x 2 + $50/app
Variance extensions 50% of Application fee + $50/app
Application to Design Review Commission
Demolition $500
Residential Structures
Principal $70
Accessory $70
Extension $35
Modification $55
Multi-Family, Comm, Mixed-Use Structures
Sketch $200
Principal $650
Extension $250
Modification $400
Multi-Family, Comm, Mixed-Use Accessory, Signs, Awnings
Principal $150
Extension $100
Modification $150
Application Fee x 2
Application to Planning Board
Special Use Permit $1200 + $50/app
Temporary Use Permit $500
Special Use Permit - extension $400
Special Use Permit - modification $550 + $50/app
Site Plan Review - incl. PUD:
Sketch Plan $400 per sketch
Site Plan Full
Residential $400 + $250/unit
Non-residential $800 + $150/1000 sf
Administrative SPR
Residential $400
Non-residential $800
Extension
Residential $250
Non-residential $350
Subdivision - incl. PUD:
Sketch Plan $400 per sketch
Preliminary Approval
Residential: 1-5 lots $700 + $50/app
Residential: 6-10 lots $1100 + $50/app
Residential: 11-20 lots $1450 + $50/app
Residential: 21+ lots $1800 + $50/app
Residential - extension $350
Final Approval
Residential $1,550 + $200/lot + $50/app
Non- Residential $2,400/lot + $50/app
Final Approval Modification
Residential $400 + $50/app
Non- Residential $800 + $50/app
Final Approval Extension
Residential $250
Non- Residential $350
Other:
Lot Line Adjustment/Subdivision Administrative Action$400
Letter of Credit - modification or extension $400
Letter of Credit - collection up to 1% of LoC
Recreation Fee $2000/lot or unit
Land Disturbance $750 + $35/acre
Watercourse/Wetland Permit $750
SEQRA EIS Review (Draft & Final) TBD
Post Work Application Fee
Post Work Application Fee
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FEES - 2023
City of Saratoga Springs
OPED Fees
Page 1 of 1
5
TOG,4 CITY OF SARATOGA
Gage Simpson,Chair
Qg A Brad Gallagher,Vice Chair
Shafer Gaston
t SPRINGS
Brendan DaileyCIO
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Jonah Cohen
Otis Maxwell
Chris LaPointe
r -
µ
CITY HALL-474 BROADWAY Robert West(Alternate)
ccRPo ASE , SARATOGA SPRINGS,NEW YORK 12866 Chris Maslack(Alternate)
518-587-3550
W W W.SARATOGA-SPRINGS.ORG
20240118
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF
Thomas R. Grossman
23 Old Fort Rd.
Walkill,New York 12589
from the determination of the Building Inspector involving the premises at 169 Union Avenue in the City of
Saratoga Springs,New York being tax parcel number 166.69-3-12 on the Assessment Map of said City.
The applicants having applied for an area variance under the Unified Development Ordinance of said City to permit
the demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new garage in a UR-4 District and public notice having
been duly given of a hearing on said application held between April 8 through to May 6,2024.
In consideration of the balance between benefit to the applicants with detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community,I move that the following area variances for the following amounts of relief:
TYPE OF REQUIREMENT DISTRICT PROPOSED RELIEF REQUESTED
DIMENSIONAL
REQUIREMENT
MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH 80 FT. 50 FT. 30 FT.(37.5%)
MAX.PRINCIPAL COVERAGE 40% 146.5% 16.5%(16.3%)
MAX.DRIVEWAY PERCENTAGE 25% 40% 1 15%(600%)
As per the submitted plans or lesser dimensions,be approved for the following reasons:
L The applicant has demonstrated this benefit cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.
The lot is pre-existing,non-conforming with regard to width(50 ft.). The Board notes that the requested
driveway width is standard for a 2-car garage. The applicant submits that there is no other land for
purchase as the property is a corner lot.
2. The applicant has demonstrated that granting this variance will not create an undesirable change in
neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds that the applicant has
established that the unique location of the property adjacent to the Racing Museum,near commercial
businesses and in a neighborhood that includes several other properties that have more than a single
primary residence supports the applicants desire to construct a second dwelling unit above the garage. The
Board also finds that the applicant has demonstrated that the building coverage requested is similar in
density to other properties in the neighborhood.
3. The Board finds these variances for the are substantial,but notes the character of the neighborhood
mitigate this concern as the proposed design and density are similar to other properties.
4. These variances will not have significant adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or
district. The proposed garage will be set further from the property lines than the current garage,which
will assist in improving water and drainage on the project site. The applicant submits that the project will
Page 1 of 2
improve permeability on the site.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created insofar as the applicants desire to construct the proposed addition,but
this is not necessarily fatal to the application.
It is so moved. Dated: May 6,2024
Passes by the following votes:
AYES: 7 (B. Gallagher G. Simpson, S. Gaston, O. Maxwell, C. LaPointe, B. Dailey,J. Cohen)
RECUSED:
NAYES:
This variance shall expire 18 months following the filing date of such decision unless the
necessary building permit has been issued and actual construction begun as per the Unified
Development Ordinance.
I hereby certify the above to be a full, true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Saratoga Springs on the date above mentioned, seven
members of the Board being present.
SIGNATURE:05/10/2024
CHAIR DATE RECEIVED BY
ACCOUNTS
DEPT.
Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 1
Tamie Ehinger, Chair
Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair
Chris Bennett
Leslie DiCarlo
Jeff Gritsavage
Tad Roemer
Geoff Wood
Karen Cavotta, Alternate
Kennedy Flack, Alternate
CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS
D ESIGN R EVIEW B OARD
City Hall - 474 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
Tel: 518-587-3550 x.2517
www.saratoga-springs.org
NOTICE OF DECISION
In the matter of the application
#20240119
169 Union Garage Demo & Construction
169 Union Ave.
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
involving Historic Review of new construction within the Urban Residential - 4 District., tax parcel #166.69-
3-12, within the City of Saratoga Springs.
In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Design Review Commission classifies this request as a SEQR:
Unlisted action – SEQR assessment & determination on June 12, 2024
And, in accordance with the objectives, standards and guidelines contained in the Unified Development
Ordinance, the Design Review Board issues the following decision on January 29, 2025:
Approve the application with the following conditions:
Applicant to use windows with simulated divided light, real wood shakes, (not fiber cement board)
and five-quarter boral trim
Note: this approval shall expire 18 months from the issuance date unless any necessary building permit
has been issued and actual work begun.
Record of vote:
motion to approve made by J Gritsavage, seconded by Chris Bennett, : passed 5-1-1
In favor: TEhinger, CBennett, RDuBoff, JGritsavage, G Wood
Opposed: TRoemer
Recused: LDiCarlo
As a result of this decision, the applicant:
may proceed with the proposed project as approved
Please contact the Building Department to verify permit requirements.
January 31, 2025
Chair Received by Accounts
cc: Building Department
Accounts Dept.
Applicant/Agent
City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 3 of 21
13. #20240922 219 Regent St. Siding. Historic Review of exterior modifications within
the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District.
14. #20250023 722 N. Broadway Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior
modifications within the Urban Residential-1 (UR-1) District.
15. #20240229 Cherry St. Single Family Construction. Historic Review of new single-
family construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District.
16. #20250039 115 Union Ave. Exterior Modifications. Historic Review of exterior
modifications within the Urban Residential – 3 (UR-3) District.
D. DRB APPLICATIONS UNDER ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONSIDERATION:
Note: agenda item discussion will not begin past 10:00 p.m.
17. #20230391 177 So. Broadway & 28 Lincoln Stewart’s Demolition & Redevelopment.
Consideration of demolition of an existing single-family residence (28 Lincoln) within the
Neighborhood Center T-5 District.
18. #20240988 203 Lake Ave. Solar Panels. Architectural review of roof mounted solar
panels in the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District.
19. #20241004 16 Marion & Ave. A Partial Demolition. Architectural review of
significance for demolition of southern portion of existing corner building within the
Urban Residential – 2 (UR-2) District.
20. #20240720 30-301/2 Caroline Building Expansion. Architectural review of
residential addition within the Urban Core (T-6) District.
21. #20240393 61 Lawrence Carriage House Conversion. Architectural Review of
Carriage house exterior improvements within the Neighborhood Center (T-5) District.
22. 20250028 119 Van Dam Modification. Architectural review of a modification to a
previously approved addition to a single-family home within the Urban Residential-3
(UR-3) District.
23. #20240713 33 to 35 Caroline Construction. Architectural review of new mixed-use
development within the Urban Core (T-6) District.
______________________________________________________________________
HISTORIC REVIEW:
12. #20240119 169 Union Ave. Garage Demo & Construction Application. Historic
Review of new construction within the Urban Residential – 4 (UR-4) District.
City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 4 of 21
Leslie DiCarlo recused herself from considering the application due to proximity
to the project.
Tonya Yasenchak, Engineering America represented the owner, Thomas Grossman.
They have been before the board in the past and submitted plans in December with
some of the changes that were requested. They were asked to bring the visual detail
lower on the structure. They removed the dormers that brought your eyes upward, and
added a larger gable on the side so it would present lower. They also added details to
help break up the massing. Tonya said they believe their design is very consistent with
the neighborhood (buildings, homes, carriage houses & garages along Morton Alley) as
it is similar in height, detail, building materials and has more visual detail than the other
buildings on the Lane. Tonya showed renderings of the elevations. Some of the
materials proposed are a gable with cement board shakes, a small return with copper
metal roofing that matches the main house, one double door that will look like two doors
(spec for door in packet). The elevation facing the interior lot line (facing west) will only
be seen as you’re heading east along the alley and has a small parking area on the
side. They simplified the elevation facing the existing house and added lattice panels
for some greenery or vines where it faces the garage. The two panels on the left are
the garage and the one on the right is the utility area. They are proposing that all of the
architectural details be on the facades that face the public. The metal roofing will match
the main house. They brought down the height of the overall building. It’s
approximately 37’ to the peak of the main house and the new garage will be 25.6’ to the
peak.
Tamie Ehinger, Chair said she appreciates that the applicant listened to the board’s
feedback and reminded the board that they are not designing the structure on behalf of
the applicant. The board needs to look at what’s being presented and make sure it
adheres to historical standards and guidelines. If not, is there a legitimate reason why it
doesn’t and is it inappropriate enough to deny the application.
Tamie said the project has come a long way and what’s being presented is entirely
appropriate. She initially had concerns about the height of the carriage house and
whether it would compete with the main house. She said given the measurements and
details provided tonight she is prepared to move the project forward.
Chris asked about the materials for the siding and shakes. Tonya said they are
proposing wood siding and cement board shakes. Her client prefers the cement board
shakes because they’re easier to maintain. Chris suggested a real cedar shingle for the
shakes and cement board for the siding because the fake shakes don’t look very good
in his opinion. Tamie reminded the board that because this is new construction modern
materials are acceptable. Rob asked if the proposed Boral for the trim comes in five-
quarter trim. Tonya said it would be a nominal 6”. Rob noticed the windows were
changed from one over one to six over one. Tonya said they did that so they would be
more consistent with the existing house, add character and make it more cottage like.
She said one over one with a black window tends to just look like a hole. Jeff asked
about the metal roofing. Tonya said it’s copper. Jeff agreed with Chris that the shakes
would look better being wood because the synthetic material looks fake. The cement
City of Saratoga Springs – Design Review Board Minutes – January 29, 2025 - Page 5 of 21
board should be smooth and not have embedded grain. He said a Dutch lap would look
great and is what was originally there. Jeff thanked the applicant for their
responsiveness to the board’s concerns. Tad agreed with the other board members
that the design has come very far and is really attractive. He also agreed that the fake
flat siding would look better than cement board shakes. Tad said he has concerns about
this really large structure being so close to the house. He said he understands that
Tonya said the zoning board made them do that. He listened to and watched the zoning
board meetings in this regard and didn’t see where they were made to do that. Tad said
according to Susan the zoning rule is that the garage should be 5 ft. from the alley.
Tonya said under the UDO an accessory structure can be 5 ft. from the property line but
this is a second dwelling unit which requires 10 ft. Susan agreed with Tonya and said
because it is a dwelling unit and the alley is considered the front, a 10 ft. setback is
required. Tonya said initially they were seeking a variance to get a 9 ft. setback. They
were asked by the zoning board to reduce the number of variances they were seeking,
and this seemed to be the easiest one to eliminate. Tad said he would not support this
project in this location because it’s too close to the house. Tonya suggested that the
city change the way they look at projects if a zoning variance is being requested in a
historic district and get an advisory opinion from the DRB. Susan said the structure is
zoning compliant in its current proposed location. She agreed that an advisory opinion
from the DRB in the future makes sense. There was a discussion about the light
dividers in the windows and it was determined that the applicant will use exterior grills
with spacers.
Tamie Ehinger, Chair asked if there were any concerns or comments from the
audience regarding the project. There were none.
Jeff Gritsavage made a motion to approve the new construction at 191 Union Ave.,
Saratoga Springs NY with the following conditions: 1. Simulated divided lights which
involve exterior grills and spacers between the panes of glass. 2. Wood shakes instead
of cement board. 3. 5 quarter inch thick trim. The motion was seconded by Chris
Bennett. Vote: T. Ehinger-Y, R. DuBoff-Y, C. Bennett-Y, T. Roemer-N, J. Gritsavage-Y,
G. Wood-Y. 5-1 in favor. Motion carried.
13. #20240922 219 Regent St. Siding. Historic Review of exterior modifications within
the Urban Residential-3 (UR-3) District.
Brendan Kelly, the owner, said he wants to remove the siding that’s in bad condition
and replace it with James Hardie board and batten style siding.
Tamie Ehinger, Chair read the historic guidelines that apply for this application noting
that every effort should be made to restore/preserve original historic exterior cladding. If
it is so deteriorated that it cannot be preserved then new cladding should be replaced
in-kind and match the original or historical cladding in design, texture and other visual
qualities. Tamie agreed that some of the boards looked damaged beyond repair and
should be replaced in-kind, in this case with a wood product.
169 Union Ave - Aerial
NYS ITS Geospatial Services
Counties
Cities
2023
2023 Labels
February 28, 2024
0 0.01 0.020.01 mi
0 0.02 0.040.01 km
1:1,128
PLOT PLAN with Overlay
FOR NEW CARRIAGE HOUSE
Thomas R. Grossman
situated in
City of Saratoga Springs , Saratoga Co. , N.Y.
Scale: 1" = 15' May 30, 2025
Original Survey by:
CHARLES T. NACY
Licensed Land Surveyor
32 John Street
Queensbury, NY 12804
Morton Place
OLD BRICK
SIDEWALK
2 BAY / 2 STORY
CARRIAGE HOUSE
6-
F
T
.
H
I
G
H
B
O
A
R
D
F
E
N
C
E
6-
F
T
.
H
I
G
H
B
O
A
R
D
F
E
N
C
E
6-
F
T
.
H
I
G
H
B
O
A
R
D
F
E
N
C
E
6-FT. HIGH BOARD FENCE
PI
C
K
E
T
F
E
N
C
E
PI
C
K
E
T
F
E
N
C
E
GATE CONC.
WALK
(ASPHALT SURFACE)
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
CO
N
C
R
E
T
E
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
BRICK
SIDEWALK
WALK
CHANGE
CONC. WALK
Lu
d
l
o
w
St
r
e
e
t
Union Avenue
UTILITY POLE
NM 5, NYT 5
UTILTIY POLE
NO. 2 WITH
STREET LIGHT
UTILITY POLE
W/ ST. LIGHT
STREET
SIGN
STREET
SIGN
HYDRANT
"NO PARKING
ANYTIME" SIGN
"NO PARKING
ANYTIME" SIGN
"NO STANDING
ANYTIME" SIGN
PORCH
ONE
STORYCH
I
M
N
E
Y
TWO STORY
FRAME
RESIDENCE
"169 Union Avenue"
PO
R
C
H
PORCH
L
A
W
N
L A W N L
A
W
N
L
A
W
N
L
A
W
N
WOOD
STEPS
CONC.
WALK
CONC.
WALK
FENCE CORNER
IS 0.5' WEST OF
PROPERTY LINE.
FENCE CORNER
IS 0.3' WEST OF
PROPERTY LINE
2.6' FRAME
1.9' EAVES
1.2'
1.1'
2.7' FRAME
2.0' EAVES
2.6' FRAME
1.6' EAVES
2.8' FRAME
1.8' EAVES
2.7' FRAME
1.7' EAVES
IRON
PIPE
FOUND
(91)
(90)
LANDS NOW OR FORMERLY
ANDREA L. SPUNGEN
(Instrument No. 201037409)
DEED REFERENCE:
Eileen Oliver
to
Thomas R. Grossman
D: 9/8/2004
R: 9/10/2004
Deed Book 1695, Page 32
(Deed conveys Lot 91, being
50' x 140')
MAP REFERENCE:
"Map of lots laid out on the north side of
Union Avenue by C.W. and G.H. Mitchell,"
filed in the Saratoga County Clerk's Office
on September 26, 1886.
NOTES:
1) Area of lands of lands of Grossman:
6,999.6 Sq. Fr. +/- (0.161 Acre +/-)
2) Tax map reference: 166.69-3-12
M
A
G
N
E
T
I
C
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
2
0
1
1
TELEPHONE
ENTRY BOX
ELEC.
METER
GAS
METER"DISH
NETWORK"
CATV BOX
CAPPED IRON
ROD SET
CAPPED IRON
ROD SET
CAPPED IRON
ROD SET
CAPPED IRON
ROD SET
OL
D
S
T
O
N
E
C
U
R
B
I
N
G
OLD STONE CURBING
1/2" IRON
PIPE FOUND
Unauthorized alteration or addition to a survey
map bearing a licensed land surveyor's seal is
a violation of Section 7209, subdivision 2, of the
New York State Education Law.
Only copies made from the original of the
survey map which are marked with an
original of the land surveyor's embossed
seal and bearing the surveyor's original
signature in red ink shall be considered
valid and true copies.
EA
V
E
S
EA
V
E
S
EA
V
E
S
EA
V
E
S
EAVES
14
0
.
0
0
'
S
2
6
°
1
6
'
0
9
"
W
50.00'
N 63°30'44" W
13
9
.
9
9
'
N
2
6
°
1
6
'
0
9
"
E
50.00'S 63°31'41" E
50.00'
50.00'
14
0
.
0
'
20
.
0
0
'
COVERED
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
76 Washington St.
Tonya L. Yasenchak, PE
ENGINEERING AMERICA CO.
Plot Plan for DRB by:
Permission granted to Engineering America Co.
by Charles Nacy, to use original survey dated 3/8/17
to prepare a Plot Plan for purposes of presentation
to zoning board of appeals for variances.
This Plot Plan is not a survey.
Setbacks & coverage shall be confirmed by licensed
surveyor prior to and following construction.
BR
I
C
K
W
A
L
K
PROPOSED 20.0'
PROPOSED
CONCRETE SLAB DRIVEWAY
L
A
W
N
NEW
GRASS
AREA
PROPOSED
20' WIDE
CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY
CONCRETE WALK
L
A
W
N
GARAGE
PREVIOUS
2-BAY FRAME
GARAGE
9'
-
1
"
TOP OF FOUNDATION
GARAGE CEILING
2nd FLOOR LEVEL
DORMER WALL HT
SLAB LEVEL
7'
-
5
12"
±
28'-0"
8" CONCRETE
FOUNDATION REVEAL
(PAINTED BLACK)
WOOD DOOR 23'-6"4'-6"
TOWARDS LUDLOW ST.
(AS VIEWED FACING SOUTH FROM ALLEY)
ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
(TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE)
WOOD SHAKES
NOMINAL 6" WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
MARVIN ULTIMATE WOOD WINDOWS
WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LITE
WOOD BRACKET
COMPOSITE OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR
8" WOOD
POST
BORAL or WOOD BASE WATER
TABLE TRIM 8" BASE / 2" TOP
2" TOP TRIM WITH
NOMINAL 6" WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
NOMINAL 6" WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
STANDARD WOOD SIDING (PAINTED)
NORTH ELEVATION
GROSSMAN: CARRIAGE HOUSE
169 UNION AVE. (MORTON ALLEY), SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
DESIGN BY:
Y ENGINEERING DPC (ENGINEERING AMERICA CO.)
76 WASHINGTON ST., SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
518 / 587 - 1340 TONYAY@NYCAP.RR.COM
TONYA YASENCHAK, PE
6/16/25 SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
MORTON ALLEY
5
12
28'-0"
4'-0"
12
12
EAST STREETSCAPE
GROSSMAN: CARRIAGE HOUSE
169 UNION AVE. (MORTON ALLEY), SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
(AS VIEWED FACING WEST FROM LUDLOW)
DESIGN BY:
Y ENGINEERING DPC (ENGINEERING AMERICA CO.)
76 WASHINGTON ST., SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
518 / 587 - 1340 TONYAY@NYCAP.RR.COM
TONYA YASENCHAK, PE
6/16/25 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' 0"
22'-1" ±
24'-1" ±
28'-0"
TOWARDS LUDLOW ST.
(AS VIEWED FACING SOUTH FROM ALLEY)
4" WOOD LATTICE PANEL
(48" x 86"±)
COPPER METAL
ROOFING TO
MATCH EX HOUSE
COPPER METAL
ROOFING TO
MATCH EX HOUSE
WOOD SHAKES (PAINTED)
NOMINAL 6" WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
NOMINAL 6" WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
STANDARD WOOD SIDING
(PAINTED)
SOUTH ELEVATION
GROSSMAN: CARRIAGE HOUSE
169 UNION AVE. (MORTON ALLEY), SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
DESIGN BY:
Y ENGINEERING DPC (ENGINEERING AMERICA CO.)
76 WASHINGTON ST., SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
518 / 587 - 1340 TONYAY@NYCAP.RR.COM
TONYA YASENCHAK, PE
6/16/25 SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
(AS VIEWED FACING EAST FROM INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE)
MORTON ALLEY
5
12
28'-0"
12
12
WOOD SHAKES (PAINTED)
6" NOMINAL WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
WOOD BRACKET
COPPER METAL ROOFING
TO MATCH EX HOUSE
6" NOMINAL WOOD TRIM or
5 1/ 4" BORAL TRIM
STANDARD WOOD SIDING (PAINTED)
WEST ELEVATION
GROSSMAN: CARRIAGE HOUSE
169 UNION AVE. (MORTON ALLEY), SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
DESIGN BY:
Y ENGINEERING DPC (ENGINEERING AMERICA CO.)
76 WASHINGTON ST., SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
518 / 587 - 1340 TONYAY@NYCAP.RR.COM
TONYA YASENCHAK, PE
6/16/25 SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"
MORTON ALLEY
5
12
28'-0"
4'-0"
12
12
EAST STREETSCAPE
GROSSMAN: CARRIAGE HOUSE
169 UNION AVE. (MORTON ALLEY), SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
(AS VIEWED FACING WEST FROM LUDLOW)
DESIGN BY:
Y ENGINEERING DPC (ENGINEERING AMERICA CO.)
76 WASHINGTON ST., SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY
518 / 587 - 1340 TONYAY@NYCAP.RR.COM
TONYA YASENCHAK, PE
6/16/25 SCALE: 3/16" = 1' 0"