Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20250203 Park Place & Cottage St Site Plan Public Comment (51)RE: Cotage Street Subdivision and Condominiums Applica�on David Guarino and Linda Haner, 21 Park Place neighbors July 29, 2025 As like any small city, Saratoga Springs is comprised of many smaller neighborhoods, each having their own iden�ty formed by its residents past and present. Ours is a very residen�al neighborhood comprised of many single and two-family homes with just two denser parcels. The primary physical characteris�c of our neighborhood is the many smaller older homes each with some sizable green space surrounding the homes, usually in a propor�on of 2 or 3:1, for lawns and gardens to structures. The residents here don’t consider Circular Street or Union Street to be a part of our neighborhood as they have their own unique architecture with much grander homes leading up to and surrounding Congress Park. They are also part of the historic district while we are not, which makes them very different than our neighborhood. My partner and I had recently proposed to develop a neighboring parcel on the corner of Park Place and Regent Street into two addi�onal 2-family homes, joining an exis�ng 3-family building to comprise a seven unit condominium complex with over 50% greenspace including preserving most of the historic oak trees. A�er over $50,000 and nearly 2 years of effort and mul�ple requested adjustments, that project was turned down by this board on the basis of density, although the request was for only 4 addi�onal units out of an allowable 7. This one is requiring the absolute maximum density of 6 out of 6 allowable units. While neither of those proposed buildings was more than 2 stories, and the parking was all fully accommodated, the neighbors argued that they preferred the open space provided by that lot, and the board agreed. The board clearly understood something in what the neighbors presented that made sense to them, (even a�er the DRC had provided unanimous support for the project, and there were no variances requested.) Interes�ngly, since then that same lot has been sub-divided twice and there are currently 2 smaller sized single family homes being built, which will easily fit in with the scheme of the neighborhood for mass and scale without any disagreement from the neighbors. This current proposal however is very different for mass and scale, and much more dense than that proposal, (maximizing the mass and number of units and minimizing the greenspace.) This requested density includes 100% of the allowable units while the previously rejected project was for only 57% of those allowed, and yet it was rejected based solely on density. This is clearly a substan�al increase of density and is also much larger in mass and scale as well, dwarfing that previous request. The rejected project was for approximately 10,000 sq� of new construc�on on a similar sized lot, yet this proposal is reques�ng double that square footage at over 19,000 sq�! The UDO has not changed requirements for lot coverage or for space per dwelling unit, yet this project is nearly twice as large and a third more of the allowable density of the one recently rejected based on density, where is the consistency here? Does this project fit in any beter to the neighborhood at twice the scale and even higher density? If you are wondering what remains the same from the previous project, it is the residents who make up the neighborhood themselves. Over 90% of the neighbors are the same as during the previous applica�on, and the character of the neighborhood is substan�ally unchanged, aside from the two new smaller homes currently going in. Even the UR4 zoning is substan�ally unchanged per the current UDO. I think I can speak for my neighbors as well when I say that none of us wants to live downtown where the densi�es are very high, and there is no greenspace except for Congress Park. This project would be right at home on many other lots in the downtown district, but not here where we like our privacy and respect that of our neighbors in this residen�al neighborhood. When the applicants moved in 3 years ago, they never atempted to interact with the neighbors or become a part of the neighborhood, in fact it appears they don’t really even live here now. Even before they moved in they erected a 6-foot white fence on both streets surrounding the property to barricade any interac�on, not very neighborly. They even thought it would be proper to cut down every large tree on the property, they simply clearcut all five healthy 150+ year old historic oak trees, along with the others. How much in keeping with Saratoga’s health and history standards is that, and what do we even stand for anymore? Don’t people even appreciate greenspace and trees any longer? Can the applicants do that just because he sits on the Preserva�on Society board? Is that the way things really work here in Saratoga? The applicants have never sought to discuss or explain the project to the other residents of the neighborhood, many of whom are long �me locals of 20-50 years. It appears obvious that they are just developing this property and then moving on, leaving the spoils for the exis�ng neighbors to deal with when they are gone. Are they really planning to surround their high-end home with 2 condo projects and then live here? They most likely don’t intend to stay here because it will be so uncomfortable having such an imposing structure overshadowing their own home, and now even with windows overlooking their property. The obvious conclusion is that it’s not their problem, just ours… The applicants both come from real estate development families and careers, so what should we surmise? They will move on to the next project in another neighborhood in our lovely city, seeking again the blessing of this Planning Board and the DRB, who don’t live on those streets or have to deal with the impacts themselves, just like the developers. To highlight all of this, the most egregious intrusion will be to the immediate neighbors at 23 Park Place. The privacy of that pre-exis�ng home will be severely impacted with this building’s windows and 40 foot walls merely 13 feet away from their own bedrooms and bathrooms, that is just the length of a small compact car! Would any of you want that, and what would you do? Move out? Is there to be no fair compensa�on to the neighbors for the devalua�on of their proper�es while these developers take massive profits to the bank and leave us to weep? This project is forever folks, not just for today. Please consider the consequences to all of the neighbors who live here, today and in the future. Summary of Arguments: • The project is out of scale with the neighborhood, nearly 4 �mes the size of the largest structure, 2 people on the DRB recognized this and disapproved it. • A similar sized lot adjacent on Park Place is currently being developed with 2 single family homes, very much in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood. This could be done here instead. • The Planning Board recently denied a very well-designed project, (which was unanimously approved by the DRC), comprising two 2-family homes (4 new units) on the grounds of too much density, even though we were only asking for a total of 7 of 11 allowable units and NO variances. They listened to the neighbors, (overriding the zoning codes), which have not changed substan�vely for UR4. • Oddly irregular lot line adjustment is without precedent, drawn only to accommodate this layout of this massive structure. The Planning Department has a long-stated objec�ve to maintain straight lot lines throughout the city when gran�ng sub-divisions. • The Mass and Scale are way out of propor�on with the neighborhood, being nearly 4 �mes the size of the nearby largest residen�al structure (19,000 vs 5200 sq�), and over 8 �mes the size of a typical neighborhood home right next door! • The mansard roofline appears overwhelming from the street, it is a full 3 story structure on a street of only 1 and 2 story homes. • No good way to handle snow other than dumping it on the street and crea�ng issues for neighbors and DPW. • 2500 sq� apartments are not necessary, 1500-1800 sq� is very adequate especially for part-�me residents, like most of the other exis�ng condos throughout the city • This project is scaled for downtown, not for a residen�al neighborhood. • Very recent owners who have never tried to even meet the neighbors or say hello other than for this proposal. They likely don’t intend to live in this neighborhood which they will greatly diminish and then leave behind. We also strongly request that these issues not be decided in the middle of the summer when so many of us are not present to par�cipate in the mee�ngs. This could impact the en�re neighborhood for 100+ years to come, and full and proper considera�on and input needs to be given to this decision. The neighbors who have lived here for so many years deserve to be fully considered without ramming this through the process. September would be a much beter �me for many in the neighborhood who will be directly impacted.