Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Pud topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council clears JW Hemingway PUD for further review after developer presentation

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Saratoga Springs City Council voted to enact Local Law No. 2 of 2025 to create the JW Hemingway Planned Unit Development district and send the project through the planning and site‑plan review process after a developer presentation and public comments.

The Saratoga Springs City Council voted to enact Local Law No. 2 of 2025 to create the JW Hemingway planned unit development district, moving the project forward to planning and site‑plan review. Developers from the LA Group presented a conceptual plan to the council and answered questions during a public hearing before the vote.

The developer team — represented at the meeting by David Carr of the LA Group and John Witt of A and W Holdings — described the proposal as a mixed‑use development on an approximately 1.8‑acre parcel near the racetrack. Carr said the proposal includes single‑family homes along Nelson Avenue, private drive access from Frank Sullivan, a mixed‑use building with three condominiums and “a very small 800 to 1,000 square foot commercial, seasonal commercial space” and guest suites without kitchens tied to the primary units.

The nut graf: Enacting the PUD creates the zoning mechanism to allow the concept to proceed to more detailed site plan, design review and other approvals; the council repeatedly said remaining design, setback and public‑benefit issues will be resolved in later stages.

During public comment and council questioning, speakers and members sought clarity on density, guest‑unit use, traffic and neighborhood character. Carr and Witt said the guest units would not have kitchens and “cannot be rented out,” and that the mixed‑use building’s short‑term apartment would be limited to condominium owners’ personal use. When asked about total unit and bedroom counts, the developer described the plan as conceptual and estimated roughly 12 homeowners and a range of three to five bedrooms per unit depending on final buyer choices.

Council members emphasized the project will undergo a thorough review. Commissioner commentary noted concerns over setbacks and neighborhood fit; councilors said they expect planning board and design review board scrutiny. One councilor asked that the “benefit agreed to by the applicant” — described earlier as an expanded and paved recreation center parking lot at an estimated $150,000 — be paid at the time of PUD establishment rather than later at site‑plan approval.

The motion to enact the local law was approved with three votes in favor, one nay and one abstention. Council members who seconded and voted on the motion were recorded in the meeting minutes. The enactment sends the PUD into the formal planning review process; site plan approval, design review and any additional negotiated public benefits remain to be completed.

The council set expectations that the PUD process will include detailed design review, potential conditions on setbacks and public‑benefit performance, and further public hearings before any building permits are issued.