Design Review Board issues unfavorable advisory opinion on Prime Station Lane over residential massing

The Saratoga Springs Design Review Board on Dec. 10 issued an unfavorable advisory opinion to the planning board on the Prime Station Lane site plan, citing the mass and scale of the proposed multifamily residential buildings.

Jamie Easton, the civil engineer on the project, told the board the design team had reduced roof pitch and stepped back the fourth floor and that the architect revised window configurations and the center core massing. Easton said the roof pitch change from a 7/12 to 5/12 equated to roughly a 4–5 foot reduction in height.

But several board members said those changes did not sufficiently break up the appearance of an overly large residential block. Tammy Enger said the revised entrance on Route 29 was an improvement but that the residential building remained “way too high” and “way too massive,” and called for further reductions. Chris Bennett agreed that the hotel and townhouses were improved but called the front entrance “weak” and said the multifamily building still read as excessively large. Rob Duboff and others urged the applicant to consider dividing the structure or seeking variances rather than retaining a single continuous facade to meet the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) build‑out requirements.

After extended discussion about visibility from Route 29, existing vegetation buffers, and UDO requirements that push for 70% build‑out along the boulevard, the board polled its members and moved to issue an unfavorable advisory opinion focused on the mass and scale of the residential units while noting no strong concern about the hotel or rowhouses. The chair said the decision was advisory and that the planning board could request additional information or return drawings once further revisions are made.

The board’s concerns centered on visual compatibility, fenestration, materials and street engagement; members recommended the applicant return with revisions that break up the perceived mass, strengthen the primary entrance, and show additional perspective renderings. The board did not approve or deny materials or a final design — the referral was limited to advisory comment on mass and scale for the planning board.

The project team was told the planning board will receive the unfavorable advisory opinion and that the design may return after the architect makes further modifications.