HomeMy WebLinkAbout20230216 118, 121-125 Woodlawn Special Use Permit Public Comment (6)To: Susan Barden, Senior Planner
Mark Torpey, Chair, Planning Board
From: Tom Denny – 45 Greenfield Ave., between Woodlawn and State
Re: My oppositfon to Prime’s applicatfon for a Special Use Permit at 118 Woodlawn
Date: July 19, 2023
While a rejuvenatfon and appropriate use of this historic church structure would be a welcome change
to this neighborhood and the city, I do not believe that a private social club with restaurant and bar for
its 200 members and their guests will have a positfve impact on this neighborhood. The main arguments
against approval of the Special Use permit would be: safety; disturbance to a quiet residentfal street
from traffic (including patrons, workers, & deliveries), noise, parking, and restaurant ventfng; and, given
that the applicant owns additfonal propertfes along the Woodlawn corridor, the threat of creeping
commercializatfon of a delightiul residentfal street, one parcel at a tfme.
I would urge the Planning Board to reject this request and to encourage the applicant to find a use
for the building that will better preserve the tranquil residentfal feel of Woodlawn. Professional offices
would be more appropriate, such as the John Witt headquarters, the LA Group, or the law offices at the
northwest corner of Woodlawn and Walton.
Safety and Van Dam Street. As a pedestrian who has walked all over Saratoga for decades, I would say
that the intersectfon of Woodlawn and Van Dam is probably the single most terrifying, dangerous
pedestrian crossing in Saratoga. Traffic is heavy in both directfons for much of the day and evening, and
it travels fast. As the applicants point out in sectfon A of their applicatfon, 118 sits on the north side, the
primarily residentfal side, of a land use boundary. But the heavy traffic along Van Dam makes it a physical
and psychological boundary as well. (Susan Barden could probably speak to this as well.) The Planning
Board should not approve this Special Use permit unless it is convinced that there will be no need for
club members and their guests to park on the south side of Van Dam. An increased volume of people
crossing Van Dam between 118 and the Woodlawn parking lot would create a public safety issue and
invite tragedy. The idea that people would walk to Broadway, cross Van Dam at the light, and then come
back to Woodlawn seems highly improbable, given human nature.
I believe the Planning Board should expect that all parking, at least all safe parking, will be added to
the residentfal streets north of Van Dam. That will disrupt the neighborhood and there is no reason to
grant the applicant permission to do that to the residents.
How did the church use compare to the applicant’s proposed use. In the proposal, the applicant
stresses that the church building was “underutflized” and that they will be bringing life back to this
historic building. But in the lawyer’s response to public comment, they suggest that the church was busy
in similar ways to their planned use, with meetfngs on weekday evenings, among other things.
I suspect that their applicatfon is the more accurate depictfon of the change in use and that their
private club will have much more actfvity than the church did and much more of a transforming, negatfve
influence on the character of the neighborhood.
The applicant’s references to comparable businesses. The applicant’s proposal might not be so
problematfc if it were limited to a parcel with frontage only on the north side of Van Dam. Instead, the
proposal calls for an incursion into the Woodlawn corridor that involves a parking lot that is the third
parcel north of Van Dam. Plus there are entrances to 118 along Woodlawn. And the 22-space parking
lot will likely not be sufficient for the employees, members, and guests of a viable club. And there will be
kitchen vents on the north side of the building. This is all different from the neighboring businesses.
The barber shop faces Van Dam and has adequate on-site parking for its patrons in front of the
building.
Any businesses on the south side of the Van Dam boundary are really not comparable, but they too
have adequate on-site parking.
The 500-foot radius in which the applicant noted the existence of restaurants, shops, etc. reaches all
the way to Broadway before you encounter any use and hours of operatfon resembling the restaurant-
bar of the private social club. Those do not seem to be comparable.
Except along Broadway, the “downtown core” for this type of business does not really reach north of
Walton, let alone north of Van Dam.
I urge you to reject this request and leave the Woodlawn neighborhood north of Van Dam as the quiet
residentfal street that it is. There are many better uses for this building that would allow its revitalizatfon
and preservatfon.
Thank you for your consideratfon.