HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250202 Park Place & Cottage St Final Subdivision Public Comment (14)Outlook
Online Form Submittal: Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment
From noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Date Mon 7/28/2025 12:02 PM
To Mark Graham <Mark.Graham@saratoga-springs.org>; Susan Barden <Susan.Barden@saratoga-springs.org>
Land Use Board Agenda Public Comment
SUBMIT COMMENTS REGARDING CITY PROJECTS
Thank you for submitting your comments. Your feedback will be forwarded to the
City's Planning Department and Land Use Board members. NOTE: Comments
submitted later than 12:00 noon on the day before the Land Use Board meeting
may not be reviewed prior to their meeting. All comments will be added to the
project file in the Planning Department.
Land Use Board Planning Board
Name Barbara Lombardo
Email Address barbaralombardo54@gmail.com
Business Name 40-year Park Place resident
Address 35 Park Place
City Saratoga Springs
State New York
Zip Code 12866
Phone Number 5188131310
Project Name Park Place & Cottage Street condos
Project Number Field not completed.
Project Address Park Place at Cottage Street
Comments The recommendation of the Design Review Board is debatable,
and several critical site plan issues call for clarification and
modification:
1 Where they will dump plowed snow.
2 The number and location of trash and recycling bins.
3 The effect of transformers and air conditioning systems on
neighbors.
4 Emergency traffic flow on Cottage Street.
5 The absence of green space that is usually found at Park
7/28/25, 12:29 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAEdEgOCL9sFLtUILgWEDWz0…1/2
Place residences.
6 The look of the north-facing rear, and how the subdivided
properties will be separated.
7 Discerning unrealistic plans, like trees along Park Place when
the street actually has power poles and wires.
The Design Review Board voted 5-2 vote that the mass and
scale was “not inappropriate” for this location. The Preservation
Foundation weighed in with its endorsement, while noting that
the applicant is a foundation board member.
I respect the Preservation Foundation and the Design Review
Board, but dispute their recommendations.
They point to a longstanding brick apartment building around
the corner, at White and Cottage streets. However, the
proposed building would be deeper and twice as wide. And the
proposal is enormous compared to the square footage of
several neighborhood residences (as cited in a June 10 letter
by resident Jason Thorud).
Additionally, I found that several so-called comparable
apartment or condo buildings in the city are not as big as what
is proposed, or are mostly located across the street from
parking lots and commercial properties and not in the midst of a
residential street.
Also, building out to the maximum allowed inch on the .4 acres
will overwhelm the adjacent single-family historically significant
house next door.
The Design Review Board called it ‘imperative” that the
Planning Board hold the applicants accountable for using high-
quality materials as promised. How do you accomplish that?
I look forward to you addressing these concerns. Thank you.
Attach Photo (optional)Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
7/28/25, 12:29 PM Mail - Mark Graham - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkAGIxYTcxODdiLTE4ZmUtNDdlMy05MTNlLTA4ZjY5NTFhMDAzMQAQAEdEgOCL9sFLtUILgWEDWz0…2/2