Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01 UDO Amendments 2026 Other CITY OF SARATOGA SPRINGS D ESIGN R EVIEW B OARD ❖ City Hall - 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 Tel: 518-587-3550 www.saratogaspringsny.gov Tamie Ehinger, Chair Rob DuBoff, Vice Chair Karen Cavotta Karen D’Andrea Leslie DiCarlo Jeff Pfeil Geoff Wood Allie Dockum, Alternate Christina Abel, Alternate July 22, 2026 To: John Safford, Mayor JoAnne Kiernan, Commissioner of Finance Jessica Troisi, Commissioner of Accounts BK Keramati, Commissioner of DPW Timothy Coll, Commissioner of DPS RE: Advisory Opinion to the City Council – Proposed Amendments to Articles 3, 4, 13, 19 and 21to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Dear Mayor and Commissioners, Pursuant to City Council action on April 21, 2026 requesting an advisory opinion from the Design Review Board, this board reviewed “A Local Law Amending Certain Provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance of the City of Saratoga Springs”, heard from the public, and discussed at its May 6, May 20, June 3, and July 8, 2026 meetings. The Design Review Board’s mission is to safeguard Saratoga Springs' historic and architectural districts. These areas are among our most valuable public assets and create the first impression for residents and visitors alike. The DRB ensures that redevelopment and new development are compatible with the character that distinguishes Saratoga Springs from other communities. The 2015 Comprehensive Plan (adopted by City Council on June 16, 2015) calls for protecting the city's unique identity through “preservation and enhancement of historic qualities” and “preserving traditional community character,” alongside encouraging high-quality new construction in both the historic and architectural districts. For five decades, the Design Review Board (DRB) has served as one of the city's most important stewards of community character and has worked to ensure that development, redevelopment, rehabilitation, demolition, signage, and exterior alterations preserve, protect, and enhance the neighborhood integrity that defines Saratoga Springs. The vibrant historic city we live in today is vastly different than the one you would have encountered a few decades ago. The factors that have propelled the economic success of Saratoga Springs are the preservation of our architectural heritage and thoughtful re-development of our downtown vacant parcels. We stand on the shoulders of our city’s visionary leaders who understood the value of preserving our buildings by creating the concept of the DRB. What followed was a deliberate, sustained effort over the last 50 years to advocate for protection of our neighborhoods alongside compatible, appropriate development. Page 2 of 4 Saratoga Springs consistently earns national accolades for its historic and charming city streets , and Broadway itself is regularly cited among the Top 10 Main Streets in America. Our many neighborhoods filled with 19th and early 20th century architecture showcase homes and structures with good proportions and pedestrian friendly features such as front porches and appropriate setbacks. We should not lose sight of what has led our city to becoming an internationally recognized tourist destination and highly desirable place to live. The Design Review Board finds that while many of the proposed changes are consistent with the City’s CLG Status and State Historic Preservation Office’s Model Law, other amendments may weaken the preservation and sustainability standards already established. The Design Review Board offers the following considerations: Article 3: Residential Districts The proposed change in Article 3 – the addition of an asterisk and accompanying note in the Residential District Dimensional Standards tables stating “For properties located within the Historic District, building height is subject to DRB approval or positive advisory opinion to the Planning Board” is a welcome modification that reinforces the Design Review Board’s ability to ensure that development within the residential Historic Districts preserves the historic character, maintains appropriate historic streetscapes and protects the integrity and neighborhood appeal of these areas. Article 4: Mixed Use & Commercial Districts The proposed amendment to Article 4—the addition of an asterisk and accompanying note in the Residential Mixed Use, Commercial Mixed Use, Commercial and Gateway District Dimensional Standards tables stating, “For properties located within the Historic District, building height is subject to DRB approval or a positive advisory opinion to the Planning Board” is an appropriate addition for the same reasons as listed above. This Board also appreciates the proposed changes to Article 4.4 B-Commercial Mixed Use District Development Bonus, 3-Procedure, as they clarify the procedure for applicants as well as the respective Boards while protecting Historic Districts and ensuring any project requesting a height bonus may be reviewed for the thoughtful development practices for which this city is known. Article 19: Nonconformities The Design Review Board has no comment regarding the proposed changes to this article. Article 21: Definitions & Measurement Methodologies The proposed changes to this article are appropriate. Article 13: Land Use Board Applications The Design Review Board appreciates many of the proposed revisions to Section 13.9, Design Review Board Applications. Over the years, the Board has encountered challenges with the language in the current Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and believes these revisions provide greater clarity regarding the intent of the ordinance. The Board believes that while there are still portions of this article that would benefit from further review and refinement, it views the proposed amendments as a suitable initial step. Page 3 of 4 The addition of economic hardship claims to the Design Review Board's authority will enable the Board to consider factors beyond the strict interpretation and application of the standards when appropriate. The delineation of design considerations for repair and replacement materials within the Historic and Architectural Districts provides greater clarity for both the Board and applicants regarding where and when historic preservation standards apply. Collectively, these revisions allow the Design Review Board to draw upon its knowledge, training, and expertise while thoughtfully considering the many variables involved in the decision-making process. Within the demolition section for the Historic District, the proposed revisions and additions clearly define the criteria for significance and effectively communicate the demolition review process and decision- making framework. The Board supports these changes because we believe they will produce positive outcomes for applicants and for the fabric of the Historic Districts. This Board further believes that this framework would provide an effective and balanced approach if also applied to the Architectural District. By contrast, the Board does not support the proposed changes to the demolition section of the Architectural District, as they are too far-reaching and risk the demolition of many significant structures that may not be eligible for landmark status, but nonetheless contribute to the character and integrity of the Architectural District. Approximately 250 contributing structures within our city’s Architectural District are on the State and/or National Register of Historic Places would be threatened by the proposed language. Continuing the effort to designate Local Landmarks and Historic Districts is essential to preserving the character and historic identity of Saratoga Springs. The Board is in favor of the proposed revision allowing any person to initiate the designation process and believes this change will encourage broader public participation, foster a stronger sense of community stewardship, and enhance appreciation for the City's historic resources. The Board does not support the proposed language in Section 13.9(K), Appeals. As drafted, the provision states: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Design Review Board relating to application approval or economic hardship may, within 15 days of the decision, file a written appeal to the City Council for review of the decision. Appellate review shall be based on the same record that was before the DRB and using the same criteria in this local law." The Board understands this provision is based on the model law, however, we believe this language is overly broad, as it would allow any person to appeal any Design Review Board decision to the City Council. Instead, the Board recommends limiting appeals to applicants seeking review of decisions involving claims of economic hardship, consistent with the authority established in Section 13.9(E), General Powers: "Consider claims of economic hardship arising from the denial of an alteration, addition, new construction, or demolition application to the Design Review Board pursuant to the appeal procedures established in Section 13.9(J) of this article." Expanding the right of appeal to encompass all Design Review Board decisions could create uncertainty in the review process and result in appeals being heard by a body whose members are not required to possess the specialized training or expertise in historic preservation, architecture, or design review that is expected of the Design Review Board. The Board believes that all appeals should remain within a framework that recognizes the specialized knowledge and technical standards required for these decisions. The Board believes that the only appropriate basis for an appeal to the City Council is a claim that the Design Review Board failed to follow the procedures established in the ordinance. If the City Council Page 4 of 4 determines that a procedural error occurred, the appropriate remedy would be to remand the application to the Design Review Board for reconsideration in accordance with the established procedures, rather than substituting its own judgment on matters of design or preservation. Due to the extensive nature of the changes, the limited legal knowledge of the Board, and our concern for the legality of some of these proposals, the Design Review Board respectfully requests the City Council ensure a legal review by the City’s Land Use Board attorneys before voting on this proposal. This opinion focused on the ideas and intent of the proposed changes; however, the Board did notice a number of inconsistencies in wording, definitions, etc. and has attached an addendum to this opinion outlining those concerns. As drafted, the Design Review Board cannot fully support these proposed amendments and recommends consideration with additional input from residents, stakeholders, SHPO, and other land use professionals. On behalf of the Design Review Board, I welcome any questions or requests you may have regarding this opinion. Thank you for allowing the Design Review Board your time and attention in making this important recommendation. We welcome the opportunity to review and offer our opinion on revised drafts of this proposal. Respectfully submitted, Tamie Ehinger DRB Chair cc: Accounts Dept. Julia Destino, Senior Planner