Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200155 Guarino Subdivision correspondence received 5-14-20 5/14/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 21 Park Place/May 14th Agenda From : debra fernandez <debrajfernandez@gmail.com> Thu, May 14, 2020 11:23 AM Subject : 21 Park Place/May 14th Agenda To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Dear Planning Board Members, For the past fourteen years, I have resided as a tenant at 105 Regent Street in the home of Andrea Gardner and am firmly embedded in the neighborhood; therefore, I would like to add my voice to those that are expressing concern regarding this project. Andrea has already sent you a detailed list of questions so I will not take up any more of your time by repeating them. Let me simply reiterate the neighborhood's concern regarding negative impact on infrastructure as well as the character and integrity of this historic neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Debra Fernandez https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103772&tz=America/New_York 1/1 5/14/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 21 Park Place - May 14, 2020 Planning Board Agenda item From :Andi Gardner <andigard@aol.com> Thu, May 14, 2020 10:59 AM Subject : 21 Park Place - May 14, 2020 Planning Board Agenda item To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> Reply To :Andi Gardner <andigard@aol.com> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Dear Planning Board Members, It is my hope that you have all reviewed the previous applications and denials for this property by the Planning Board. The neighbors of 21 Park Place have been unanimously opposed to development plans of the owners since their first land use meeting in 2014. Questions that come to mind based on this new application: 1. Is the approved subdivision really going to result in a build-ready parcel that is going to be marketed and sold by the applicant, or are they really hoping/planning to develop this themselves? If it is the latter, we should be very concerned about what the building will look like architecturally, as well as the size and scale. 2. Is the proposal for a single family home or two-family? This matters greatly to the site plan, as well as to the rest of the neighborhood. The plan does not specify the number of dwelling units specifically, and the water and sewer capacity analysis has inconsistent information. 3. What is the scale and use of the detached garage? The neighbors to the east and south will be negatively impacted by the visual of a two-story garage, and having that additional building along Park Place will detract from sidewalk character, closing off the feel of the pedestrian area as well as limiting views of the existing historic building from Park Place. 4. There have been a couple of sewer back-ups into neighboring properties, and assertions that the water and sewer infrastructure in the vicinity are aging and potentially can't handle additional load. The current plan being proposed for 21 Park Place does not contain information about certain aspects of a development that would be of interest to know prior to approval, in addition to the number of dwelling units. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103766&tz=America/New_York 1/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra -Snow removal placement areas -Placement of trash receptacles -Turning radii for all vehicle areas -Architectural style and design of building -Landscaping plans -Proposed building height -On-site lighting -Basement on new structure - likely would mean that the tree they are showing as remaining near the foundation would be damaged/killed -Sufficient parking cannot be determined if the # of dwelling units is unknown -Traffic study to determine impact of additional curb cut Regent Street is the only street in the Saratoga Springs Historic District that failed to include both sides of the street. While 21 Park Place, previously designated as 106 Regent Street, was not included, this Gothic home and 200 year old white oak trees are a cornerstone and have more architectural and historical significance to Saratoga Springs than any other property in our neighborhood. It is our hope that you, as board members, will keep this in mind when considering approval of this new project and its negative impact on the character and integrity of our historic neighborhood. Thank you for your efforts, Andrea Gardner 105 Regent Street https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103766&tz=America/New_York 2/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 21 Park Place From :Ashley Gardner <ashley397@gmail.com> Thu, May 14, 2020 11:19 AM Subject : 21 Park Place To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. HelloN Having grown up across the street from 21 Park Place, and planning to live on Regent Street again, the idea of subdividing this property is an absolute travesty to me. Once these small gems that make our city the special place that it is, they can never be replaced. The decades and centuries of thoughtful care that have gone into the construction, maintenance and improvement of the historic buildings and lots in the neighborhood by surrounding property owners should not be cut down in one fell swoop by a single individual who seemingly only wants to squeeze every possible short-term gain from this beautiful and historic property. It is devastating to think of this lot being destroyed in this manner, and the character and fabric of this picturesque street forever altered. Saratogians pride ourselves on being stewards of the special place that we live, and I know that the neighbors and surrounding property owners have spent a tremendous amount of energy, time, and money doing their part to keep the neighborhood special. This project ruins that with the stroke of your pen. The proposed plan leaves many questions, which I believe it is appropriate to flesh out before any approval can be given. Initial questions that come to mind based on the application: 1. Is the approved subdivision really going to result in a build-ready parcel that is going to be marketed and sold by the applicant, or are they in fact hoping/planning to develop this themselves? If it is the latter, I would be very concerned about what the building will look like architecturally, as well as the size and scale. 2. Is the proposal for a single family home or two-family? This matters greatly to the site plan, as well as to the rest of the neighborhood. The plan does not specify the number of dwelling units specifically, and the water and sewer capacity analysis contains inconsistent information. 3. What is the scale and use of the detached garage? The neighbors to the east and south will be negatively impacted by the visual of a two-story garage, and having that additional building along Park Place will detract from sidewalk character, closing off the feel of the pedestrian area as well as limiting views of the existing historic building from Park Place. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103770&tz=America/New_York 1/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra 4. It was my understanding that there have been a couple of sewer back-ups into neighboring properties, and assertions that the water and sewer infrastructure in the vicinity are aging and potentially can't handle additional load. The current plan being proposed for 21 Park Place does not contain information about certain aspects of a development that would be of interest to know prior to approval, in addition to the number of dwelling units. - Snow removal placement areas - Placement of trash receptacles - Turning radii for all vehicle areas - Architectural style and design of building - Landscaping plans - Proposed building height - On-site lighting - Basement on new structure - likely would mean that the tree they are showing as remaining near the foundation would be damaged/killed - Sufficient parking cannot be determined if the # of dwelling units is unknown - Traffic study to determine impact of additional curb cut and density The historic character of the neighborhood is so important. The Historic District is directly across Regent Street from the site (an unusual situation of the line being drawn down the center of the road). Neighboring property owners have been stewards of the buildings and neighborhood character for decades, spending countless hours and dollars to improve and maintain their properties, many of whom have had to comply with the regulations of the historic district. Keeping the beautiful character and charm of the street should be of utmost importance. The loss of the mature trees on the property will be unfortunate as well. Please, if you are going to allow this property to be developed in any way, I beg that you require and reserve the ability to review and have the neighbors comment on the architectural style and specific design of both the building and the landscaping. The previous project that was proposed for this lot was visually atrocious, and that is being kind. Anything that is built here should be attractive from both the Regent Street and Park Place view, and should be required to be in keeping with the quality and craftsmanship of the adjacent homes. Frankly, one drive through the area should be enough to convince anyone that this lot should be left as it is. I just wish the owners of the property had purchased it for its beauty and historic charm, rather than its ultimate destruction. So sad. With great concern and sincerityN Ashley Gardner 8 Rosebay Road Ballston Spa, NY (grew up at 105 Regent Street) https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103770&tz=America/New_York 2/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org 21 Park Place From : Mark RTX Herwig <mark.herwig@rbc.com> Thu, May 14, 2020 10:05 AM Subject : 21 Park Place To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. My wife and I reside at 107 Regent Street, basically across the street from the west-side of the property that is now before the Board. My understanding is the board is largely comprised of new membership, and as such, I would strongly encourage all members to look at the historical file (various previous failed attempts at development) of this property. The owners have repeatedly tried over the years to develop this property in various ways—all of which have failed for a variety of reasons. The proposal is simply the same bird,just of a different color. Over-arching concerns: ' loss of open space and character in an already extremely dense and highly traveled residential part of the city, including trafFic related to 2 different schools (Beagle and SUNY Empire State), ' Connectivity/adjacency to an historic district of the city and the need to maintain and preserve its overall value. Other concerns: The current plan being proposed for 21 Park Place does not appear to contain information about certain aspects of property development that have always been of interest and concern to the neighborhood, and arguably important to better understand prior to any approval of this project now before the Board. -Snow removal placement areas -Placement of trash receptacles -Turning radii for all vehicle areas -Architectural style and design of building -Landscaping plans -Proposed building height -On-site lighting -Basement on new structure- likely would mean that the tree they are showing as remaining near the foundation would be damaged/killed -SufFicient parking cannot be determined if the#of dwelling units is unknown -TrafFic study to determine impact of additional curb cut Additionally, I request of the Board, in consideration of all of above,to direct the project to a comprehensive site plan review and DRC input on the proposed construction with an eye toward how it might compliment or detract from the general nature and character of the neighborhood. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103750&tz=America/New_York 1/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra Any unsatisfactory results of such a thorough review should be grounds for not approving. RespectFu I ly, Mark Herwig (107 Regent Street) Senior Director Global Chemical Compliance and Risk Mgt Program O: (860) 728-6595 C: (203) 224-9713 eFAX(860) 353-0316 Mark.Herwig@rbc.com Raytheon Technologies Corporate Environmental Health & Safety 9 Farm Springs Road Farmington, CT 06032 RTX.com � Linkedln � Instagram � Facebook � OR Internal URL https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103750&tz=America/New_York 2/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org Letter opposing 21 Park Place Development From : Deirdre Ladd <deirdresladd@gmail.com> Thu, May 14, 2020 12:03 PM Subject : Letter opposing 21 Park Place Development To :Jennifer merriman <Jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Dear Members of the Planning Board, We are writing in opposition to the proposed plan for the subdivision and development of 21 Park Place. This board has denied the property owner's previous applications for a variety of reasons that still hold true: -loss of open space -loss and damage to mature trees -historic neighborhood character and preservation -limited water and sewer capacity -extremely limited parking -snow removal density issues -trash and recycling bin space constraints -Inadequate turning radius for vehicles, especially emergency vehicles -unprofessional landscape and architectural drawings This new plan does not specify the crucial details of the proposed single or two-family dwelling nor does it provide the scale or usage for the two-story, detached garage. Our hope is that the Planning Board will deny this new application. Of course, if the Historic District was expanded to include the east side of Regent Street (as opposed to just the west side), many of the aforementioned concerns would be mute. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael and Deirdre Ladd 113 Regent Street Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103774&tz=America/New_York 1/1 5/14/2020 Zimbra Zimbra jennifer.merriman@saratoga-springs.org APP. #20200155 GUARINO/HANERSUBDIVISION, 21 Park Place From : Daniel Maney <smokerman@verizon.net> Thu, May 14, 2020 11:15 AM Subject :APP. #20200155 GUARINO/HANERSUBDIVISION, 21 Park Place To :jennifer merriman <jennifer.merriman@saratoga- springs.org> Reply To : Daniel Maney <smokerman@verizon.net> CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City network. Please contact IT Support if you need assistance determining if it's a threat before opening attachments or clicking any links. Jennifer. Would like the following presented to the Planning Board at tonight's meeting (5/14/2020) Reference: APP. #20200155 GUARINO/HANERSUBDIVISION, 21 Park Place 5/14/2020 Planning Board members.... I'm Dan Maney and I own adjoining property (108 Regent St.) to the property under discussion and I'm opposed to this project on the bases of what it will do to a historic property and the surrounding neighborhood. I'm one of the 6 original property buyers still residing on the block. When the Skidmore/ Verrazzano property was finally released for sale, this block was subdivided proportionately to the structures on it. In my opinion, it is still one of the nicer historic properties in Saratoga and has been preserved and maintained in a heartfelt way and deserves to be left that way. The previous applications and denials reflect what the entire neighborhood is trying to preserve. Previously, the neighborhood has been at many of these meetings and voiced their disfavor over development of this property. This project is being reputed by not just one resident, but the entire surrounding neighborhood which should point out that this is not a desirable change. It changes the demography of the neighborhood which has been in place for over 160 years. The aesthetic value of the neighborhood will be lost. Built 164 years ago this property was saved from the wrecking ball and has been maintained in great condition. Surrounding property owners have also refurbished or restored their homes to the period of their construction. The property under discussion tonight was built around 1856 as a "well to do" residence referred to as the "Martin House" and later became the notable "Woodland Hotel". Both being so notable, photos of them were used for postcards of Saratoga. Also, note that this property https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103768&tz=America/New_York 1/2 5/14/2020 Zimbra is emphasized on the Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation's walking tour. This property has cathedral windows & iron work unlike any other structure in Saratoga - all to be lost from view if these structures are built. Before any decisions are made, you as board members, should take an obligated look at this beautiful piece of historical property under discussion and picture what an undesirable result this decision could make to the density and aesthetics of the neighborhood and the impact it will have on another historic property if approved. Board members, I hope that what I have presented and attempted to demonstrate in this brief synopsis shows the importance as to why this property under review should remain as is and the density and structure mass should not be permitted so as to preserve the caricature of historic Saratoga and the neighborhood it is in. Thank you. Please see my questions on document review below. Other questions and concerns: 1) Contour lines look to be existing and unchanged. Has drainage been looked at? How much drainage from paved areas is going on to adjacent property at 23 Park Place and out to Park Place? 2) What is the % of green space to structure and paved areas? 3) Where is snow removal going for the large 3+ car parking lot and driveway? 4) With proposed new structure in place, what fire equipment access is there to the existing structure as the driveway is only 10 feet wide. 5) A 25' structure set back is indicated off the East side of Regent Street and while this may be the allowable minimal, it doesn't conform to the +/- 60' set backs of the other 3 existing lots along Regent St. on this block. 6) The 25' set back from both Regent and Park Place brings the structure close to the corner cutting down visibility and creating a terrible blind spot for drivers. This intersection, as wide open as it presently is, for years has been notorious for car accidents (especially during track season) and even now with the 4 way stop, it still is. 7) Is the indicated structure 1, 2 or 3 family (including space over garage) 8) The Key on dwg. S1 shows symbol for 8' fence. Is limit 6'? 9) The Key on dwg. S2 shows symbol for High Visibility Fence which I hadn't found on dwg. https://m.saratoga-springs.org/h/printmessage?id=103768&tz=America/New_York 2/2 May 14, 2020 City of Saratoga Springs Planning Board 474 Broadway Saratoga Springs NY 12866 RE: 21 Park Place subdivision Dear Board Members, My wife Debra and I own 7 Cottage Streeet in Saratoga Springs. Our property shares the property boundary with 21 Park Place on their north east corner. We are concerned about the impact this application will have. For one we are very concerned that the entire eastern third of this property will now be hard surface. There currently is 30 feet of green space between the existing hard surfaces and the property line on the eastern part of current 21 Park Place. Engineering America Co says there will be a slight modification of the existing driveway. They are moving the entire driveway 25 feet to the east so it is just 5 feet from the Property line. This is NOT a slight modification. The applicant has 160feet of frontage on Park Place. Is it necessary to place this so close to the property line?? This new driveway will also only be 5 feet from the new17 Park Place. How will the problems with snow removal, and pollution runoff be addressed??? A second concern with the new 21 Park driveway is visibility for pedestrians on the sidewalk, and bicycles or cars on the street. There is a mature six foot high hedge on the property line. To place a driveway 5 feet from the property line really is only 2 feet from the hedge. Cars entering and exiting 21 Park will not be able to see or be seen. A third concern is the density of the new buildings at 17 Park. The detached garage seems unnecessary unless they are attempting to get another living space to AIRBNB. Why are two buildings being allowed ??? What can be done to make sure this 2nd building is not a residential building ??? Our neighbors have serious concerns on this application. Thank you for your time and considerations. Stephen O'Shea Debra O'Shea 7 Cottage Street 518 423 2749