Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 3030 5 Caroline Option A topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board clears 'Option A' for 3030½ Caroline Street; requires details on windows and materials
Summary
After lengthy review and public comments, the DRB endorsed Option A for the 3030½ Caroline mixed-use proposal, requiring the applicant to return with refined window configuration and non-fiber-cement material options for certain facades.
The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on May 28 voted to proceed with Option A for the proposed mixed-use building at 3030½ Caroline Street, directing the applicant to return for focused review of window fenestration and alternative materials to the fiber-cement panels shown in current drawings.
Olson Associates Architects, represented by George Olson and owner Lou Lazanero, showed two options (A and B) that match the mass-and-scale approval the board had previously granted. Option A steps the upper floors back in a way the majority of the board said better preserves the visual prominence of the adjacent historic Sperry'9s façade. The proposal calls for a darker brick, fiber-cement panels to break up massing, and large glazed bays; rooftop mechanicals will be concealed.
Board members and members of the public reviewed design details for more than an hour. Supporters and opponents of the project addressed the board: the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation submitted comments arguing the massing would substantially alter the historic building'9s appearance and suggested the project could lead to the building being classified as non-contributing; others said a sensitive, step-back approach was appropriate. Several board members urged changes to the fenestration rhythm so the façade more clearly reflected interior functions. Several members also expressed concern about long-term durability of fiber-cement panels and requested brick or alternative detailing for key piers.
After discussion the board'9s majority said Option A best preserves Sperry'9s visual separation and approved the option on condition the applicant return with the following: full window/mullion detail options and at least one alternative to the proposed fiber-cement panels (for example brick infill or higher-grade masonry detailing) and other finish selections for final approval. The board explicitly left the door open to consider the replacement of the fiber-cement component with brick where appropriate. The vote to approve Option A also included a direction that the applicant present those details to the board before final sign-off.
Members urged the applicant to test materials and bring refined fenestration patterns before the board; the applicant said they would continue to refine details and return in a future meeting for full review.
