No, historically speaking.
So Homo Sapiens have been around for (and potentially drove to) extinctions for at least two other almost-certainly-sentient human subspecies, Denesovians and Neanderthals. Both these groups are known too have used tools, and both (though the evidence is less definitive for Denesovians) did things like bury their dead with ceremony and make clothing. Humans co-existed on the same planet as these guys for 100,000ish years. However we also seem to have been pushing both these groups (again, the proof is much better for Neaderthals than Denesovians) into smaller and smaller territories once we spread out of africa enough to encounter them. So while you can say "hey we inhabited the same planet at the same time" you can also say "we warred with our only sentient competitors from the moment we met them until we drove them to extinction." Sure there's a little Neanderthal and Denesovian DNA in humans nowadays, (a % or 2 neo in europeans, a % or 2 denesovian in asians, to paint with a VERY broad and still argued-about brush.) but that doesn't disguise the fact that we seem to have driven them to extinction. A % or two could easily be an artifact of "kill every man, child, and old woman in the clan, make the surviving women slaves" which isn't what you'd call "peaceful coexistence!"
There are a couple other species on the planet arguably sentient, elephants, dolphins, a species or two of great apes, and pigs being the most famous. We are.... not really friendly with any of those either. Of the four, pigs are enslaved foodstock, great apes and elephants are a fading fragments, and dolphins are only recently protected. You'll note that it's only the one that doesn't actively compete with us and is hard to get at (dolphins) that seems "free" from direct human abuse.
Ravens and Grey Parrots are also species that some people argue are "sentinet." I discount parrots because "the smart ones are as smart as a 4 year old" is the intelligence ratio I see bandied about for them, and that doesn't strike me as "truly sentient." Ravens use tools, talk to each other, and seem to mourn death from time to time. If we grant Ravens are sentient then they're the only such species we have anything approaching a healthy relationship with. Probably because they're able to escape us easily, aren't much of a threat, and benefit from us being around.
So what does that mean? To me, it means that a planet with multiple sentient species needs to either A: have them separated geographically for thousands of years of social development. (Columbus discovers dino-people instead of native humans) or B: The species are mutually beneficial (the Faries and humans coexist because human grain stores attract things Faries eat) or C: operate in near-totally mutually exclusive environments. (Merpeople and humans). Of these, Option B seems most likely to produce "harmony." Option A is just begging for the Other Species to take on the role of demon inferior/witch-aligned devils and xenocidal war breaking out the second they meet unless you got REAL lucky. After all, genocide is a well-warn trope for different groups of the same species meeting for the first time! Option C could result in a live-and-let-live, but just as easily devolve into warfare as one side encroaches on the other's habitat (classc fisherman-overfish merpeople land) or raid for items rare in their own environment or that are hard for them to produce (bird-people raiding human territory for metal goods.)
ADDENDUM: I should point out that this "murder the thing that's competing with me" (and all sentient beings on the same planet would, to some extent) is a common trope throughout nature. Ants war with other ants AND termites. Humming birds stab other humming bird species to death with their beaks, the various apex predators in africa all murder each other's young for sport, etc and soforth. So, "yeah HUMANS do that, but other species might" while technically possible, doesn't seem to be borne out by example in nature.