Design Review Board presses architect for changes to 30 Caroline project, citing scale and impact on historic Sperry’s

The Design Review Board spent an extended portion of its April 9 meeting debating a revised design for a mixed‑use project proposed for the Caroline Street block that would abut and partially overbuild the historic Sperry’s building.

Olsen Associates Architect George Olsen presented a set of changes made since the project’s previous hearing: the development reduces mass immediately behind Sperry’s by stepping upper floors back, drops one full floor in one portion of the plan and adds terraces to some units. Olsen said the team also removed a one‑story section and obtained a zoning variance for frontage rules where an easement constrained the build‑to line.

But public commenters and multiple board members, citing more than three dozen public letters, said the addition still “overwhelms” and “dwarfs” Sperry’s. The State Historic Preservation Office and the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation were cited by board members as having expressed concern about the project’s massing and the potential impact to the historic streetscape. Several residents spoke against the application during public comment.

Board members acknowledged the applicant had responded to feedback, and some members praised the stepped‑back revisions; others said the project still visually “swallows” Sperry’s because a new mass wraps above and around the older building. Members suggested several approaches to reduce the perceived impact: create a clearer visual distinction between the approved building at 30 Caroline and the new addition (for example, darker materials that recede and/or a glass connector), consider additional setbacks (even if it requires a zoning strategy), or rework the portion of the new structure that sits directly above Sperry’s to appear as a separate building rather than a single continuous mass.

The applicant said work so far had reduced unit counts and that construction costs and returns are sensitive to further reductions; he asked for clear direction on whether to proceed. Board members encouraged the applicant to keep working on alternative schemes and return with refined drawings; the board did not grant final approval and did not vote on the project at this meeting.

The board’s discussion emphasized that the street wall requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and an existing sewer easement constrained options; staff and board members identified the 0–12 foot build‑to line and an 80% frontage requirement as factors shaping allowable setbacks. Members and preservation advocates urged the applicant to pursue creative massing and material strategies that allow Sperry’s façade to “stand proud” while still allowing infill on the adjacent parcel.

The applicant said he will review additional setback and material options, consider separating the volumes more distinctly (for example, darker cladding that recedes), and return to the board for another review.