Design Review Board grants mass-and-scale approval for 30/30½ Caroline Street; applicant to return for details after public comments

The Saratoga Springs City Design Review Board on April 30 approved the mass and scale of a proposed multi-story addition at 30 and 30½ Caroline Street, the project that would surround and span over the existing Sperry’s building. The board voted 4–2 to approve mass and scale only; the applicant must return for continued discussion and final approval of setbacks, materials, fenestration and other exterior details.

Applicant George Olsen of Olsen Associates Architects presented revised renderings and two design options (referred to by the board as Option A and Option B) intended to reduce the visual dominance of the new structure and to allow Sperry’s façade to “pop.” Olsen said the new construction is independent of Sperry’s and spans over that building; the design team described the new structure as wood-frame with brick veneer where appropriate and two-hour fire-rated connections around Sperry’s. Olsen and the design team also presented historical Sanborn maps to show how the Caroline Street frontage evolved over time.

Board members described a lengthy public response: staff and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation said the city had received more than 60 public comments. The Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, represented by Sydney Hedge, urged the board not to approve a design that preserves only the front façade of Sperry’s and argued the project’s mass and scale remained inappropriate; Hedge read the foundation’s letter into the record and reiterated concerns raised by the New York State Historic Preservation Office. Michelle Funicello, president of the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, spoke in support of preserving Sperry’s character and urged high-quality materials.

Board debate focused on whether the two design options sufficiently separate the new building from Sperry’s. Some board members supported Option A (which they said better broke the mass into street-scaled parts); others supported Option B (a stepped-back alternative that reduces floor area but can remove one to two units per floor). Board members discussed zoning and the Unified Development Ordinance setback and height constraints; the architect said the project had been dimensioned in prior submittals and that recent drawings adjusted materials and visual separation rather than footprint dimensions.

After discussion, the board voted to approve mass and scale only, with the applicant to return for continued review of setback details, materials, fenestration and window details prior to full approval. The vote was recorded as four in favor and two opposed. The board indicated a preference for Option A but left final material, fenestration and minor setback details to continued review.

Ending: The applicant will return with specified material samples, fenestration details and any final dimensional clarifications for the board’s further review; the board’s action preserves Sperry’s façade in place while allowing the new construction to proceed through subsequent review steps.