Planning Commission

From: Michael Gardner To: PlanningCommission Subject: 5th Ave & Federal Luxury Apt Feedback Date: Monday, June 21, 2021 10:23:24 PM Hello Planning Commission, My name is Michael Gardner and I live at 27 2nd st in Troy. I saw someone post on Facebook about the potential luxury apartment complex at the corner of 5th Ave and Federal and would like to provide my feedback as a resident. Having more apartments in Troy is great! I would love to see apartments that were more affordable for people of all backgrounds, as well as having an exterior that matches the iconic style of Troy. I think some of the resentment that some Troy residents (myself included) feel is from the flood of luxury apartments in recent years. We have had the News, the Incite, the Vicina, and Starbuck Island all coming online within the same 1-2 years with similar (as some would say "lack of") style and similar customer segments and no input from the community while now T hearing about Kings Landing 2 at this location and the Troy Winter Gardens at Quackenbush Square by Bryce. I worry that with all these luxury apartments, we are attracting people who are interested in said apartments but end up buying inflating priced property causing current residents with modest buying power for property to be squeezed out of the community in AF terms of property ownership.I also worry about the increase in traffic (and all that comes with it) if these apartments happen while no increase in services happen for them. I think these situations could be improved with the following: more mixed housing instead of purely high-income luxury apartments D more mixed zoning to create the charm of downtown Troy building designs that reflect the culture of the community R more built-in parking such a below ground garage beneath the apartment complex Lastly, I think it would be better if instead of an apartment complex, we had some sort of larger food store in the downtown to reduce car dependency of Troy. During the pandemic's peak, a lot of my neighbors turned to Hello Fresh or similar services and there were lots of deliveries happening. Sure it saves the neighborhood on gas and time, but it's a waste of money and still hurts the environment when they could have a grocery 3-5 blocks away. Ideally we should have a modest spread of small to medium sized markets throughout the town beyond the corner stores. Thanks for reading this email. I would love to hear from you all about your process and what you consider in making these decisions so the next time i post online about a project, I'm a little more informed and respectful of the process. Michael From: William Hughes To: PlanningCommission Subject: Kings Landing Date: Saturday, July 17, 2021 4:18:19 PM Dear Sir or Madaam, I am the owner of 2136 and 2140 5th Ave. across the street from the project. The design I saw in the Albany Buisness Reveiw June 25- July 1 2021 edition was to my liking. I think the tall part on the corner of Federal and 5th with lower part on the northern part of 5th Ave is quite good and I would like to see this project move forward and get rid of the eyesores that currently exist. My only concern is parking, which is already tight. If the project would provide parking for all their tenants, maybe with a slight rent increase, this would be a very good proposal. The commercial space would be a benefit to the community. Thank you, T Bill Hughes Troy Raven LLC AF DR From: Anna Feltham To: PlanningCommission Subject: Public Comment - Kings Landing II Date: Friday, July 23, 2021 10:02:05 AM Good morning, I am a resident at 2164 5th Ave, Troy, NY 12180 and would like to submit comment for the open public comment period for the special meeting to be held Monday July 26th, 2021 regarding Kings Landing II. I oppose the amendment from the original proposal of 5 stories (Site Plan dated 10/8/2020) to 10 stories. The proposed increase in building mass will have a negative impact on the feel at pedestrian level for residents of 5th ave as well as residents to Incite/Kings Landing I and passers by. The proposed amendment would significantly increase the building mass and change the character of the surrounding blocks. Newer development and/or tall buildings nearby are primarily 6 stories including; O'Neil Apartments located at 2121 6th Ave (7 stories),Troy Towers located at the southeast corner of Federal St and 6th Ave (7 stories),Social Security Administration building located at 500 Federal Street (6 T stories), Incite/Kings Landing I (5 stories). The existing historic character of the neighborhood is predominantly 3 story buildings. Please consider the letter by the Preservation League of New York State addressed to the AF Planning Commission, dated March 25, 2021, which calls attention to the demolition of four National Register-eligible historic buildings. The New York State Historic Preservation Office noted the adverse effect this proposed building would pose on the entire block of historic buildings. The Planning Commission should recommend the developer investigate installing a pedestrian D crosswalk across Federal Street at 5th Ave. Pedestrians currently cross here and the substantial addition of apartments will only increase the number of pedestrians jaywalking unsafely. R I understand that development happens and housing is needed and furthermore that the Federal Street, as a busy connector road is generally a desirable location for larger development, however, I would ask the Planning Commission to minimize the proposed addition of stories as the Kings Landing II original 5-story building (Site Plan dated 10/8/2020) would be more in keeping with both new and historical development in the neighborhood. Thank you, Anna Feltham -- Anna Feltham anna.feltham@gmail.com D R AF T  ‌ ‌ July‌‌26,‌‌2021‌ ‌ ‌ Planning‌‌Commission‌‌Members‌ ‌ City‌‌of‌‌Troy‌ ‌ 433‌‌River‌‌Street‌ ‌ Troy,‌‌NY‌‌12180‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ T Re:‌ ‌ Site‌‌Plan‌‌Review‌‌of‌‌proposed‌‌development‌ ‌ Kings‌‌Landing‌‌Phase‌‌II‌‌-‌‌Resubmission‌‌(PLPC‌‌2021‌‌0014)‌ ‌ AF Corner‌‌of‌‌Federal‌‌Street‌‌&‌‌Fifth‌‌Avenue,‌‌City‌‌of‌‌Troy‌ ‌ Dear‌‌Planning‌‌Commission‌‌Members:‌ I‌‌have‌‌been‌‌retained‌‌by‌‌TAP,‌‌Inc.‌‌regarding‌‌the‌‌so-called‌‌“resubmission”‌‌for‌‌the‌‌Kings‌‌ Landing‌‌Phase‌‌II‌‌proposed‌‌development‌‌project.‌ ‌While‌‌some‌‌changes‌‌have‌‌been‌‌made‌‌since‌‌the‌‌ D prior‌‌iteration‌‌of‌‌this‌‌project,‌‌TAP,‌‌Inc.‌‌continues‌‌to‌‌be‌‌concerned‌‌about‌‌the‌‌overall‌‌magnitude‌‌ and‌‌impacts‌‌of‌‌this‌‌proposed‌‌project.‌ ‌You‌‌have‌‌already‌‌determined‌‌that‌‌the‌‌first‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌ R II‌‌project‌‌(PLPC‌‌2020‌‌0011)‌‌has‌‌the‌‌potential‌‌for‌‌a‌‌significant‌‌adverse‌‌impact,‌‌and‌‌you‌‌issued‌‌a‌‌ positive‌‌declaration‌‌for‌‌the‌‌first‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II‌‌project‌‌at‌‌your‌‌March‌‌25,‌‌2021‌‌meeting.‌ ‌We‌‌ urge‌‌you‌‌to‌‌issue‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌declaration‌‌for‌‌this‌‌so-called‌‌resubmission‌‌for‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II.‌ ‌ ‌ The‌‌positive‌‌declaration‌‌requires‌‌the‌‌preparation‌‌of‌‌an‌‌environmental‌‌impact‌‌statement‌‌ (“EIS”),‌‌in‌‌which‌‌project‌‌alternatives‌‌and‌‌mitigation‌‌measures‌‌would‌‌be‌‌considered‌‌and‌‌ analyzed.‌ ‌However,‌‌instead‌‌of‌‌filing‌‌a‌‌scoping‌‌document‌‌for‌‌the‌‌preparation‌‌of‌‌the‌‌EIS‌‌for‌‌the‌‌ first‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II,‌‌the‌‌applicant‌‌has‌‌apparently‌‌submitted‌‌new‌‌project‌‌application‌‌materials‌‌ (mostly‌‌recently‌‌updated‌‌in‌‌July‌‌2021),‌‌which‌‌appear‌‌to‌‌represent‌‌an‌‌alternative‌‌design‌‌of‌‌the‌‌ Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II‌‌project.‌ ‌ ‌ The‌‌proposed‌‌project‌‌reflected‌‌in‌‌the‌‌resubmission‌‌materials‌‌has‌‌adverse‌‌environmental‌‌ impacts‌‌that‌‌are‌‌similar,‌‌if‌‌not‌‌identical,‌‌to‌‌the‌‌project‌‌that‌‌was‌‌previously‌‌submitted‌‌to‌‌you‌‌ (including‌‌but‌‌not‌‌limited‌‌to‌‌historic‌‌impacts,‌‌and‌‌impacts‌‌to‌‌community‌‌character).‌ ‌Therefore,‌‌ even‌‌if‌‌you‌‌consider‌‌this‌‌to‌‌be‌‌a‌‌new‌‌application‌‌that‌‌is‌‌subject‌‌to‌‌a‌‌completely‌‌new‌‌review‌‌ process,‌‌this‌‌proposed‌‌alternative‌‌design‌‌of‌‌the‌‌project‌‌will‌‌also‌‌require‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌declaration‌‌ ‌ ‌ PO‌‌Box‌‌2369‌‌Glens‌‌Falls‌‌NY‌‌12801‌ ‌❙‌ ‌claudia@braymerlaw.com‌ ‌❙‌ ‌(518)‌‌882-3252‌ ‌ ‌  ‌ pursuant‌‌to‌‌the‌‌State‌‌Environmental‌‌Quality‌‌Review‌‌Act‌‌(“SEQRA”)‌‌so‌‌that‌‌you‌‌can‌‌review‌‌the‌‌ project’s‌‌adverse‌‌impacts,‌‌potential‌‌alternatives‌‌and‌‌possible‌‌measures‌‌that‌‌will‌‌mitigate‌‌or‌‌ eliminate‌‌the‌‌adverse‌‌impacts.‌ ‌ First,‌‌as‌‌you‌‌already‌‌determined‌‌at‌‌your‌‌June‌‌16,‌‌2021‌‌meeting,‌‌the‌‌new‌‌submission‌‌ continues‌‌to‌‌be‌‌a‌‌Type‌‌I‌‌action‌‌pursuant‌‌to‌‌SEQRA.‌ ‌According‌‌to‌‌the‌‌State‌‌Office‌‌of‌‌Parks,‌‌ Recreation‌‌and‌‌Historic‌‌Preservation‌‌letter‌‌dated‌‌October‌‌16,‌‌2020,‌‌the‌‌proposed‌‌project‌‌is‌‌ located‌‌within‌‌the‌‌National‌‌Register‌‌eligible‌‌North-Central‌‌Troy‌‌Historic‌‌District.‌ ‌The‌‌list‌‌of‌‌ SEQRA‌‌Type‌‌I‌‌actions‌‌includes‌‌an‌‌action‌‌that‌‌involves‌‌200‌‌or‌‌more‌‌residential‌‌units.‌ ‌However,‌‌ the‌‌threshold‌‌for‌‌residential‌‌units‌‌is‌‌reduced‌‌to‌‌25%‌‌(or‌‌50‌‌units)‌‌for‌‌any‌‌site‌‌“‌that‌‌has‌‌been‌‌ determined‌‌by‌‌the‌‌Commissioner‌‌of‌‌the‌‌Office‌‌of‌‌Parks,‌‌Recreation‌‌and‌‌Historic‌‌Preservation‌‌to‌‌ be‌‌eligible‌‌for‌‌listing”.‌ ‌6‌‌NYCRR‌‌§‌‌617.4(b)(9).‌ ‌Therefore,‌‌since‌‌the‌‌project‌‌is‌‌located‌‌in‌‌an‌‌ area‌‌that‌‌is‌‌eligible‌‌for‌‌listing‌‌on‌‌the‌‌historic‌‌register,‌‌the‌‌proposal‌‌is‌‌a‌‌Type‌‌I‌‌action.‌ ‌ Second,‌‌just‌‌as‌‌you‌‌determined‌‌that‌‌the‌‌first‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II‌‌project‌‌(PLPC‌‌2020‌‌0011)‌‌ has‌‌the‌‌potential‌‌for‌‌significant‌‌adverse‌‌impacts,‌‌this‌‌resubmission‌‌of‌‌the‌‌project‌‌has‌‌the‌‌potential‌‌ T for‌‌significant‌‌adverse‌‌impacts‌‌and‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌declaration‌‌must‌‌be‌‌issued.‌ ‌The‌‌project‌‌still‌‌ involves‌‌the‌‌demolition‌‌of‌‌four‌‌National‌‌Register‌‌eligible‌‌buildings,‌‌and‌‌the‌‌construction‌‌of‌‌a‌‌ large‌‌apartment‌‌building‌‌with‌‌all‌‌of‌‌the‌‌attendant‌‌increases‌‌to‌‌the‌‌intensity‌‌of‌‌use‌‌of‌‌the‌‌proposed‌‌ AF site.‌ ‌Moreover,‌‌the‌‌cumulative‌‌impacts‌‌of‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌I‌‌and‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II‌‌must‌‌be‌‌taken‌‌ into‌‌consideration‌‌during‌‌the‌‌Commission’s‌‌review‌‌of‌‌the‌‌resubmission‌‌of‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II.‌ ‌ In‌‌addition‌‌to‌‌the‌‌potentially‌‌significant‌‌adverse‌‌impacts‌‌to‌‌historic‌‌resources,‌‌there‌‌are‌‌ potentially‌‌significant‌‌adverse‌‌impacts‌‌from‌‌the‌‌project’s‌‌parking/traffic‌‌congestion,‌‌ D noise/odor/light,‌‌visual/aesthetic‌‌impacts‌‌(including‌‌from‌‌the‌‌height‌‌and‌‌bulk‌‌of‌‌the‌‌building‌‌and‌‌ changes‌‌to‌‌the‌‌streetscape),‌‌inconsistency‌‌with‌‌the‌‌community‌‌plan,‌‌and‌‌importantly,‌‌significant‌‌ R adverse‌‌changes‌‌to‌‌community‌‌character‌‌for‌‌the‌‌neighborhood‌‌where‌‌the‌‌project‌‌is‌‌proposed‌‌to‌‌ be‌‌located.‌ ‌Enclosed‌‌for‌‌your‌‌reference‌‌and‌‌consideration‌‌in‌‌your‌‌review‌‌of‌‌this‌‌resubmission‌‌is‌‌ a‌‌letter‌‌dated‌‌March‌‌23,‌‌2021‌‌from‌‌Attorney‌‌Douglas‌‌Zamelis‌‌regarding‌‌the‌‌potentially‌‌ significant‌‌adverse‌‌impacts‌‌of‌‌the‌‌first‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II‌‌project.‌ ‌All‌‌the‌‌same‌‌adverse‌‌impacts‌‌ that‌‌caused‌‌you‌‌to‌‌issue‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌declaration‌‌for‌‌the‌‌first‌‌Kings‌‌Landing‌‌II‌‌project‌‌are‌‌still‌‌ present‌‌in‌‌this‌‌resubmission.‌ ‌Therefore,‌‌a‌‌positive‌‌declaration‌‌for‌‌the‌‌resubmission‌‌is‌‌the‌‌only‌‌ rational‌‌and‌‌defensible‌‌decision.‌ ‌ We‌‌ask‌‌that‌‌you‌‌continue‌‌to‌‌undertake‌‌concept‌‌review‌‌of‌‌this‌‌project,‌‌and‌‌we‌‌ask‌‌that‌‌you‌‌ give‌‌the‌‌public‌‌more‌‌time‌‌to‌‌provide‌‌comments‌‌to‌‌you‌‌on‌‌the‌‌latest‌‌project‌‌materials‌‌before‌‌you‌‌ issue‌‌a‌‌decision,‌‌direction,‌‌or‌‌guidance‌‌regarding‌‌the‌‌current‌‌concept.‌ ‌TAP,‌‌Inc.‌‌has‌‌been‌‌very‌‌ interested‌‌in‌‌this‌‌project,‌‌and‌‌worked‌‌diligently‌‌to‌‌review‌‌the‌‌prior‌‌project‌‌materials‌‌to‌‌submit‌‌ thoughtful‌‌and‌‌meaningful‌‌comments.‌ ‌Since‌‌the‌‌latest‌‌materials‌‌were‌‌not‌‌made‌‌available‌‌to‌‌the‌‌ 2‌  ‌ public‌‌until‌‌a‌‌few‌‌days‌‌ago,‌‌TAP,‌‌Inc.‌‌has‌‌not‌‌had‌‌an‌‌opportunity‌‌to‌‌fully‌‌review‌‌this‌‌ newly-proposed‌‌concept.‌ ‌We‌‌respectfully‌‌request‌‌that‌‌you‌‌table‌‌this‌‌matter‌‌until‌‌a‌‌future‌‌ meeting‌‌date.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌Finally,‌‌we‌‌suggest‌‌that‌‌you‌‌consider‌‌hiring‌‌a‌‌planning‌‌consulting‌‌firm‌‌that‌‌will‌‌assist‌‌the‌‌ Planning‌‌Commission‌‌and‌‌its‌‌staff‌‌to‌‌undertake‌‌the‌‌necessary‌‌and‌‌thorough‌‌review‌‌of‌‌this‌‌ proposed‌‌project.‌ ‌We‌‌look‌‌forward‌‌to‌‌your‌‌careful‌‌review‌‌of‌‌this‌‌proposed‌‌project‌‌and‌‌your‌‌ consideration‌‌of‌‌TAP,‌‌Inc.’s‌‌concerns.‌ ‌Thank‌‌you‌‌for‌‌your‌‌time‌‌and‌‌deliberation‌‌in‌‌this‌‌matter.‌ ‌ ‌ Sincerely,‌ ‌ ‌ /s/‌‌Claudia‌‌K.‌‌Braymer‌ ‌ ‌ Claudia‌‌K.‌‌Braymer‌ ‌ ‌ enc.‌ ‌ cc:‌ ‌TAP,‌‌Inc.‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ T AF DR 3‌ From: paul@socolow.com To: PlanningCommission Subject: Kings Landing II (revised) comments Date: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:29:38 AM Dear Planning Commission, I strongly oppose the new proposal for Kings Landing II. I have written emails to you describing the many bad effects this project will create, the misrepresentations of the developers about the previous phase and the costs of rehabbing the exisiting buildings on the site, and the travesty of selling city-owned land for this project. Those comments have lost none of their relevance to the current iteration of the project. Concerning the modified proposal: The increased height would increase the negative impact of such a large project, and none of the other problems that were present in the previous proposal for the project have been ameliorated or resolved. More specifically: T * The increase in retail/office space will increase parking stress in the AF neighborhood, but the parking availability in the project is essentially unchanged. * While there is an attempt to make part of the 5th Ave streetscape align with the neighborhood, all indications are that the building would be unsuitable for the neighborhood (as is the exterior of the phase I building). I have yet to meet anyone who thinks the existing structure is D appropriate for the neighborhood, or even decent looking! R * The added height would be terrible for the neighborhood and downtwon Troy. It would dominate the area, and the approaches to downtown over the Green Island Bridge and via 6th Ave and Peoples Ave. Stand on the corner of 4th and Federal and see how the existing structure dominates the block, and imagine if it were 2 stories higher! In summary, this project would be a step backwards for the continuing improvement of downtown Troy. There are so many positive recent developments in the area (e.g. riverfront path under the bridge, bike lane on the bridge, apartment conversions at Jacob and King), and potential ones in the near future (reconfirgurations of 6th Ave, Federal, and Hoosick, reuse of the Uncle Sam parking structure site), that reverting to Troy's history of gutting its historic downtown would be a tragedy.       -Paul Socolow, 2148 5th Ave