[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6458273,"mediaKeyId","5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976","parentId",5822940,"title","Design Review Board tables advisory on 400-unit mixed-use plan over concerns about mass, height and missing hotel visuals","audioSeconds",1788,"startMs",844000,"endMs",2632000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976&start=844&end=2632","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976/thumbnail_844000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6458273/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-tables-advisory-on-400-unit-mixed-use-plan-over-concerns-about-mass-height-and-missing-hotel-visuals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458273-c29ce5ceadf1c4abf9d3f7f16a07ed2d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770970087&Signature=UP4LcuuSqlhdBOMaV4-fwCVAWV9xCsROJbT0xKqzrFx1MsnJ2RjbiXFOtws1~utydYpe~B6p71rhBcZWJDawrCd0iibPBiPu7J0ZnkxYmBB9AsQnZwoOUdjfK40Jgwb9zVbV9bZ49wlqVjy3kHgOzkg0CKsLZrWHDUGVXsBMmUfLTtYL~1I7ANrXcfxx0YZ9FvPPo1iJG7tK9ylYRLxon-nE4gKBiWnRCBuXmn~gyUKImPYqeOyRC1s~0jfZfanU2sW39ZP2XfmqKOjm4GRidgk-C4NohSjiXBr9EzgIKOHABWFnswTCV9gd8Bb2gCGb-~oVfynkXAdxuLCt2Q4tpw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga","date","2025-09-24T00:00:00Z","article","Developers and their design team presented a mixed-use proposal for the Prime Station Lane site — a hotel plus about 400 dwelling units — and the Design Review Board on Sept. 24 declined to issue a favorable advisory opinion on mass, scale and height and instead tabled the item to allow the applicant to provide additional visuals and information.

James Easton, civil engineer with EP Land Services representing Prime Companies, and Svetlana Stief of Mackenzie Architects outlined the site plan, including two four-story, H-shaped multifamily buildings with internal courtyards, row houses with rear garages, and an L-shaped hotel at the corner nearest Station Lane and Route 29.

Board members repeatedly raised concerns about the proposal's overall mass and height. Several members said the multifamily buildings read as five stories when the roof and additional massing are included and described the effect as 'overwhelming' and 'resort-like.' Members said the row houses appeared appropriately scaled but that the larger multifamily blocks were visually excessive for the context near the Entrada development.

Multiple members said they could not render an opinion on mass and scale without seeing how the hotel would appear from Washington/Route 29; the applicant had provided only a 4-story box placeholder for the hotel in the materials presented.

The site's significant grade change between Washington/Route 29 and the proposed buildings was discussed: applicants explained the finished-floor elevations and garage exposures and noted that from Route 29 the hotel and buildings would likely read as about three to three-and-a-half stories because the site drops off toward the development.

Given the unresolved concerns and missing hotel elevation/renderings, the board voted to table the advisory opinion and asked the applicant to return with perspective views of the hotel and revised massing that consider frontage build-out requirements under the UDO.

The board indicated that, if the applicant provides additional information showing reduced perceived height along the boulevard and a hotel rendering, the board will re-evaluate mass, scale and height at a subsequent meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Saratoga - Design Review Commission","oneSentenceSummary","Developers and architects presented a mixed-use site plan with two four-story multifamily buildings, row houses and a hotel. The Design Review Board declined to issue a favorable advisory opinion on mass, scale and height and elected to table, citing building massing concerns and absence of a hotel rendering.","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},6458274,"Design Review Board backs UDO change to hand bonus calculations to zoning officer, urges council to pause vote",428,386000,814000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976&start=386&end=814","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976/thumbnail_386000.jpg","/articles/6458274/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-backs-UDO-change-to-hand-bonus-calculations-to-zoning-officer-urges-council-to-pause-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458274-593482a10aa46abd56b0c0093cf55334/orig.mp4?Expires=1770970087&Signature=OifZjtZnT~V9lHAL6pXgUEY205vjKXxB28ig6zsvhsTQDwevBexB-sJhOq--M2zkPnW-OkJ2LeXt0Mp0UMJr3qk7WkjRb1AuAVh4Faw6oJVYhA7Ifcz1XtWd3iMXOX7YeHLdb4eJJKb-eI1mku6AxCKMVIYOe~eOQEbUp4NfgL8f58Yr5q2wmTh8~Rz6urNurxX4rIneXkQPMRNOZApW9Yooq9Dh7btzKN89WedCXI2mhbSH~M~ZLjor8BSlDCBmVxRSYbkubuXY~gFbmRr5hv8i0-cYsgG3u4GRkFBjBIFOFuvEn-Yie4440pnBb43GZcURgd4H03D0fM9Zlto9Lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Board voted Sept. 24 to offer a favorable advisory opinion to City Council on a proposed amendment to the city's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would transfer responsibility for determining compliance with development bonus actions from the Planning Board to the zoning officer.

Board members said the change would simplify the process for calculating height bonuses and provide clearer administrative responsibility, but asked the council to pause its final vote so planning staff can review the current bonus actions and consider possible changes to the incentives.

Susan Varden, who presented the change at the board's request, said the proposal responds to the fact that the planning board's bonus decision is largely a calculation (for example, the affordable-housing square footage required for a height premium) or a verification better handled later by the building department. Under the amendment the zoning officer would determine whether a proposed bonus action meets the standards and intent to achieve the height bonus.

Board members expressed support for the simplification. Several suggested the pause would allow staff to revisit whether all of the current bonus options remain appropriate; one member recommended limiting bonus actions to affordable housing only, while others urged broader review rather than immediate removal of other options.

The board moved and seconded a motion offering a favorable advisory opinion on the amendment with two recommendations: replace the planning board's role with the zoning officer (code administrator) for bonus determinations, and that the City Council consider tabling the amendment to permit planning staff to review possible adjustments to the list of bonus incentives.

The motion passed without recorded opposition.","The Design Review Board voted to give a favorable advisory opinion to a proposed Unified Development Ordinance change shifting determination of development \"bonus\" compliance from the Planning Board to the zoning officer, and recommended the City Council consider tabling the amendment so planning staff can review the list of bonus incentives.",{"_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},6458269,"Design Review Board approves five routine exterior applications on consent agenda",185,134000,319000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976&start=134&end=319","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976/thumbnail_134000.jpg","/articles/6458269/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-five-routine-exterior-applications-on-consent-agenda","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458269-03fc41bebf98c0ed55a647c95121a869/orig.mp4?Expires=1770970087&Signature=nZFZlg8SGO2p4fuwk6zNYWL4bSv769MAZF2IH7LOhIyXIFlDVdGYPBxLXdn8enMHmHo66c~EMfToMkgkzUf294UWao6TKjge15RYdYuwWMBRifu93sW4y7Pk6PljCPWuIioaTr7c3wOQ-xztxuJVsB6EamOKd40ce4sQ1-puuAAQv3CuqqHxzpWR8MsXFwbvqEKMdJ2~3lvIydKYNPRk~kr1ZfeJdKoJPKt-cmVv5xL-2b6Z38Ygk8T9uEugg9yIj-N-9t9Px1nhGtr32A21AaQP78T51PvBB~CmArFgqu68JorrY3mh1~nSeZHMCJphdiI8KYqIVpRDenU4z-58GA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Board approved five items on the consent agenda at its Sept. 24 meeting, voting to accept the staff-recommended findings and permit the applicant work to proceed.

Approved consent items were:
- 11 Hampstead Place: A Plus Nails and Spa, exterior modifications (ventilation) in the Neighborhood Center (NC) District.
- 176 Lake Avenue: Lake Periodontic, freestanding sign in the Urban Residential 3 (UR-3) District.
- 63 Putnam Street: Saratoga Escape Room, historic review of an unlit wall sign in the Urban Core (UC) District.
- 13 Lakewood Drive: Verizon utility pole and wireless equipment in the right-of-way (UR-1 District).
- 151 Van Dam Street: porch material details for new two-story construction with a two-car garage in UR-3 District.

The board chair called for any items to be pulled for discussion; none were. A single motion to approve the five applications was seconded and passed without recorded opposition. Applicants will be contacted by staff for next steps.","At its Sept. 24 meeting the board approved five routine architectural and historic sign/utility applications on the consent agenda, including exterior ventilation, signage, a Verizon utility pole and porch material details for new construction.",{"_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},6458271,"Design Review Board approves new house at 172 Caroline Street, requires detached garage placed nearer alley",1582,4524000,6106000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976&start=4524&end=6106","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976/thumbnail_4524000.jpg","/articles/6458271/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-approves-new-house-at-172-Caroline-Street-requires-detached-garage-placed-nearer-alley","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458271-9829ca52db536595bdc4bb5be95fee0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770970087&Signature=SVMOte1ft~8SOvnNyBnWbzDCwz1PTUwe0wjgCTZlQV7r7wuIuxTqOCcfCF81E2zrX7f3jdRMCbc0QVn4a6uwhEncY7W3U48pT2vzwtW3G7ZVkplK5SyjP4v3J659RZ3AZPQ-n6E0gNt8PaPy0smjtwIKDj33xaJ39ZBM1R7E6-zt0Nq5EXSKCXM8Ax1nRS8e4yKMIo05FYtKipqrtT2VZY1LeNXQylPrUvlXdPnpJUdlagt~XBj-MdfgrQPv1tVdQ6xB5qKECKtMPbctcOwCtdpfe3yJNQ9tz9791Dpe0Jc0b1~hHT2lhA95jnWSeDycrXXv5sbcRmU6vI~P5rjikQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Board approved a new single-family house and two-car garage at 172 Caroline Street on Sept. 24, subject to conditions intended to preserve alley character and historic fabric.

Bob Flansberg of Dreamscapes Unlimited presented revised plans that increased the first-floor plate to 10 feet, realigned fenestration, and updated exterior details. The applicant also described a plan to relocate an existing historic garage to an adjacent lot (172 Caroline'the house to which that garage belongs), rather than demolish it.

Board members commended the applicant for design changes and for saving the historic garage, but several members said the proposed garage location for the new house sat too far off the alley and read as attached because of a small breezeway connector. The board discussed zoning setbacks that apply when a connector is attached and noted that an unattached garage could be sited closer to the alley.

As a compromise to preserve alley character and ensure space for vehicles, the board conditioned its approval on smooth (non-wood-grained) cement-board siding for the house and required the new garage be located 18 feet from the rear property line and not attached to the house. The board approved the project with those conditions and asked staff to process the final site/plan adjustments administratively.

Board members also asked the applicant to revisit some bay roof details for consistency with nearby historic examples. The applicant said he would provide updated plans reflecting the garage setback, siding material and roof detail changes for administrative review.","The board approved construction of a single-family house at 172 Caroline Street with conditions: smooth cement-board siding and a two-car garage sited 18 feet from the rear property line and not connected to the house; the board also approved relocating a historic garage to an adjacent lot.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6458272,"Design Review Board finds 106 Van Dam Street porch historically significant, approves restoration with conditions",451,2795000,3246000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976&start=2795&end=3246","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5822940-0813394bbb5763aee9821f2236846976/thumbnail_2795000.jpg","/articles/6458272/Saratoga-Springs-City/Saratoga-County/New-York/Design-Review-Board-finds-106-Van-Dam-Street-porch-historically-significant-approves-restoration-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6458272-7b3d4a2ced674cf9f3d04322a5192b05/orig.mp4?Expires=1770970087&Signature=HZqYehiQVwlSe3miLmqQHscV7p~uyJawkNucg3MS6C5z2BVm3qzWqcd~YVb6Rr8jFV3Sl4oWCBaEc1JIez0rj-xeD-lc4KbniPxnLm8A-oH7k3kCdjxptd1JLxVPl6U4uI2EJ87TIHH1hD1uTBfuNivkydaoWp96p~J5VFx5sMlYmzZi8xQZNfIfKtdqPRRoaeTDvv3UiZF9~EsE37tpIVYtnMZeIN0HMYTZFdFbdij6jCBHH5djoHDDDWbnPwG8xS1wrvhS3xTuHZdlo6DUGMfJyfTxFVElZLJWNdIVGftcchBus82PYJo3wjZL5MyplBohIq6JF4ahANxIVvYexQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Design Review Board on Sept. 24 determined that the front porch at 106 Van Dam Street contributes to the historic fabric of the city and directed the property owner to pursue restoration rather than demolition.

Ryan Burke, the applicant, said the porch — which he described as dilapidated, sinking and in need of repair — dates from the early 1900s and that his plan was to replace damaged components and open the porch up with a balustrade rather than the existing enclosed glazing. Sam Bosshardt of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation told the board the foundation concurs that the porch is significant for its architectural style and age.

Board members examined photos and historic evidence and found elements of the porch's shingled skirting and details to be architecturally significant despite deterioration. The board moved and seconded a determination that the porch possesses architectural and/or historic significance under Section 13 of the city's UDO.

Facing the option to approve a demolition application or require restoration, the applicant opted for the path of least resistance and expressed willingness to restore the porch. The board approved the restoration with conditions: the porch is to be restored in kind using natural materials; the owner may, at their discretion, install a wood square lattice skirting; and the roof may be either asphalt shingle where feasible or EPDM/approved membrane based on contractor recommendation and roof pitch. The board required final material details be submitted administratively for final review.

Board members and community commenters provided practical guidance on restoration, including preserving salvageable elements, using wood shingles on walls, and reusing any intact historic windows rather than discarding them. The applicant was advised to coordinate with staff on documentation and to provide good-faith evidence if demolition is pursued in the future, though members indicated demolition would be difficult to justify.","The board determined the front porch of 106 Van Dam Street is historically and architecturally significant and approved a plan to restore rather than demolish it, with conditions on materials, roofing and final administrative review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Design Review Board tables advisory on 400-unit mixed-use plan over concerns about mass, height and missing hotel visuals

Design Review Board backs UDO change to hand bonus calculations to zoning officer, urges council to pause vote

Design Review Board approves five routine exterior applications on consent agenda

Design Review Board approves new house at 172 Caroline Street, requires detached garage placed nearer alley

Design Review Board finds 106 Van Dam Street porch historically significant, approves restoration with conditions