As Saratoga continues to discuss what new downtown developments should look like, debates over historical charm vs. modern updates have resurfaced.

Related Articles

Meet the women who star-spangle Saratoga Village

Sidewalk expansion for outdoor dining approved for two Saratoga restaurants

Can Saratoga Village’s downward spiral find an upswing?

The city council held a joint study session with the planning commission on June 25 to discuss objective design standards for residential and mixed-use projects. The need for these standards is part of the city’s 2023-31 Housing Element to streamline project permitting and update existing design guidelines. The current Saratoga Village guidelines will continue to serve as recommendations for the downtown area, but subjective language isn’t enforceable for residential and mixed use projects.

Saratoga hired Lisa Wise Consulting to help with the process. The goal is to eventually update the Village Design Guidelines with the new objective design standards. The consultants will also propose amendments to the city’s zoning laws to maintain consistency with the new standards. The consulting firm previously worked with the city to develop its objective standards for single-family dwellings, multi-family dwellings and mixed use projects.

No decisions came out of the study session, but overwhelmingly, it seemed that planning commissioners and city councilmembers struggled to identify what qualified as an objective design standard, and the conversation occasionally veered off into what kinds of buildings might encourage foot traffic to the Village.

The meeting outline aimed to confirm the guidelines’ vision and make sure it was in compliance with Senate Bill 330, which was passed in 2019 to address the housing crisis. It also sought to identify certain buildings that reflected “Village styles” for reference and aimed to specify permitted and unpermitted elements to new buildings, such as building placement, details, materials, colors and historic features. The consultants also wanted the city to comment on the site design of the Village as a whole, including public or common open space, public art and signage.

In general, council members and planning commissioners agreed that any new developments should match the existing muted color palette of the Village. They also wanted natural materials to be used, shying away from options like homes built from  shipping containers. They mostly agreed on in the Village boundaries and the 35-foot height limit on buildings, as long as the view from the Village is not obstructed.

However, there wasn’t a clear direction on how to preserve the historic appearance of the Village while meeting modern-day requirements. As one planning commissioner put it at the meeting, “Charming can modernize, but historic seems like you want something to stay the same.”

He added that the city’s current values, like accessibility and inclusivity, are more contemporary concepts that aren’t represented in historical buildings, and questioned whether the discussion was “focusing too much on history for a city that’s much newer in the grand scheme of things.”

Vice Mayor Chuck Page captured the conflict that embroiled the meeting, saying, “We’re kind of damned if we do and damned if we don’t. We make this too restrictive, the state will overrule us and we’ll be hosed. So I think that we want to be careful about putting in objective guidelines that allow for appropriate growth and changes. Life is going to change, the world is going to change around us, and if we are too stuck in the mud, we are not going to change with it and we will not be a desirable community.”

Many of the 241 residents who answered the consultants’ online questionnaire said that the Village design should reflect its historic character and that ground storefronts should offer a range of active street frontage, like retail or restaurants, and they preferred dining parklets, even at the expense of parking spaces. Respondents also said they supported awnings and sidewalk seating and natural materials in for building facades.

However, there were mixed responses on building height, architectural style and transitions between high- and low-rise buildings.

Saratoga Chamber of Commerce President Jim Cargill warned against mandating only ground-level active use businesses, saying it could drive out business owners and contribute to a “downtrodden” look, and instead suggested having a balance between active and non-active use businesses.

As discussions pivoted to what standards might help revitalize downtown, Councilmember Yan Zhao suggested using open space and the city’s connection to parks and nature to encourage foot traffic. Others asked about having mixed-use buildings with businesses on the ground floor and housing on the floors above.

A suggestion was also made to make a separate “new town” where more modern design elements could be incorporated. Another person asked if a second set of restrooms and showers would need to be installed, in case upping foot traffic brings unhoused people to the Village.

The Heritage Preservation Commission took up the topic on July 8, specifically targeting subjective language currently in the Village Design Guidelines. No recommendations were made, but a subcommittee was formed with two members from the commission and three members from the Saratoga Historical Foundation. The subcommittee will be meeting over the next month or so, and their comments will be shared with the consultants working on the Village Design Standards update. There are still three study sessions for the update planned for this year.