Planning Commission

Wm. Patrick Madden Steven Strichman Mayor Commissioner of Planning Christopher Nolin Phone: (518) 279-7166 Deputy Mayor steven.strichman@troyny.gov Planning Commission 433 River St., Ste. 5001 Troy, New York 12180 MEETING MINUTES (DRAFT) The Planning Commission of the City of Troy, New York, conducted a public meeting at 6:00 P.M. on Wednesday, April 20th, 2022, in person and via Zoom conferencing, to act upon the following requests, referred by the Bureau of Code Enforcement of the City of Troy, for review and approval. 6:03 pm – Meeting called to order Commissioners in Attendance Barbara Higbee (BH), Anthony Mohen (AM), Suzanne Spellen (SS), Roddy Yagan (RY), Sara Wengert (SW) Also, in Attendance Andy Brick (Planning and Zoning Attorney), Aaron Vera (Executive Secretary), Steve Strichman (Commissioner of Planning), Eric Ferraro (Assistant Planner) Administrative Items Adoption of Meeting Minutes from February & March 16th by Resolution • S.S. motions to approve February & March meeting minutes: S.W. seconded. Abstain Absent Yes No Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to approve February & March minutes: passed 4-0. Consent PLPC 2022 0041 – 45 Third Street (101.53-8-14) [B-4 Central Commercial] Change of Use (Vacant space to Tasting Room) – SEQR (Type II) The applicant, Helderberg Meadworks, on behalf of the owner, 28 Second St, PLLC, proposes to convert a vacant space into a satellite tasting room to complement their Meadery production operations at their flagship location in Esperance, NY. PLPC 2022 0049 – 19 Third Street (101.53-3-2.1) [B-4 Central Commercial] Change of Use (former jewelry store currently vacant to Education space) – SEQR (Type II) The applicant, Reif Larsen, on behalf of the owner, Bob Bedard, seeks to convert a vacant commercial space into an education space for exhibits that showcase sustainable urban design solutions. The project and space will be run by a collective of professional institutions; Children’s Museum of Saratoga, City of Troy and the RPI School of Architecture. Written by Eric Ferraro, On Behalf of the Executive Secretary Additional information regarding the above listed actions is available by contacting the Planning Commission’s Executive Secretary at aaron.vera@troyny.gov. As required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, auxiliary aids and services are available upon request. Please give one-week advance notice for services needed. Page 1 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 PLPC 2022 0050 – 17 102nd Street (90.39-5-27) [B-2 Community Commercial] Change of Use (former vacant structure re-purposed for storage to residential apartment] – SEQR (Type II) The applicant, J&J Apartments, LLC, with ZBA approval, is proposing to convert the remaining interiors of a vacant building into a 3rd dwelling unit. • Request for public comment: No comments from public • Commissioner Comments and questions to applicant: • Commissioner Deliberation: • Applicant Response: [Commissioner Roddy Yagan enters via zoom] • R.Y. motions to approve Consent Agenda: S.S. seconded. Abstain Absent Yes No Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to approve Consent Agenda: passed 5-0. Old Business PLPC 2022 0011 – 487 Campbell Avenue (112.-4-12.114) [B-5: Highway Commercial] Site Plan Review – SEQR (Unlisted) The applicant, Nick Riggione, proposes to construct a new 3-story mixed-use building on this property. The first floor will be commercial space and the second and third floors will contain eight (8) apartment units. The applicant is represented by Derek Gribulis, RA, of Cotler Architecture. • Applicant presentation. 1. Applicant states ZBA approval of height variance was attained at April ZBA meeting. 2. Proposes site alteration to accommodate • Request for public comment: No comments from the public • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant. 1. B.H. inquires to pedestrian safety due to no sidewalk on west side of bldg. 2. S.W. formally seconds B.H. concern for pedestrian safety. 3. S.W. requests a formal declaration of all variances approved. • Commissioner deliberation. 1. B.H. and S.W. approve of proposed changes. 2. A.V. makes mention of fact that 3ft is not ADA compliant. B.H. accepts on condition that it’s not City right of way. 3. Chair proposes 2 options:  Wait for a new site plan to vote on OR  Approve upon condition 4. A.B. clarifies ability to hold a vote upon conditions requested by  B.H. & S.W.-To provide for revised site alterations accommodating pedestrian safety  S.S.-New plans be expeditiously forthcoming  A.V.-Plans be officially stamped by licensed architect. 5. A.B. states he was not at the ZBA meeting but suspects they did their own SEQR determinations granting the said variances which means we’re engaging in uncoordinated review, so PC is to conduct their own SEQRE determination prior to acting 6. Chair states his recollection is that the PC left it to the ZBA to declare themselves as Lead Agency as there was expectation that the height variance would be contentious for SEQR review Page 2 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 7. A.B. states the safest course of action is for the PC to consider a negative declaration under uncoordinated review. • Applicant response 1. Proposes to shift bldg. to the west by 3 ft to accommodate pedestrian safety thereby reducing the drive-thru lane. Will tie in with Campbell Ave. sidewalk. Eliminates the crosswalk between proposed bldg. and Dunkin Donuts. 2. Applicant formally agrees to make said changes and provide revised plan on 4/21/2022. 3. Applicant, in response to S.W. states they have ZBA approval for height and parking variances. • S.W. Motion to Declare a negative SEQR declaration on unlisted action: B.H. seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Declare a negative declaration on unlisted action: passed 5-0. • S.S. Motion to Approve site plan as agreed upon by the applicant: R.Y. seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Approve Site Plan as agreed upon by the applicant: passed 5-0. New Business PLPC 2022 0043 – 37 First Street (100.60-4-4) [B-4: Central Commercial] Site Plan Review – SEQR (Type II) The Applicant, Russell & Joanne Brooks, with ZBA and Historic Review approval, are proposing the construction of a 30x24 ft, 2 story garage in the historic district. • Applicant presentation. 1. States ZBA approval for setback variance on April 6th ZBA meeting. 2. States construction material of concrete block was approved by Historic Review on 4/12/22 • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant. 1. Chair inquires about Historic Review not requiring brick or brick veneer on outer facing wall. 2. R.Y. asks if there was any plan for occupancy on 2nd floor. 3. S.W. asks where the wood shop is; based on applicant response, identifies that the 2nd floor is not just for storage. 4. B.H. asks if he stated the wall facing house is to be brick. 5. R.Y. asks for comment about dust control and disposal from woodshop on second floor. 6. A.V. asks if there are any structures on adjacent properties because at 30 ft, building would encroach on neighbor’s yard. 7. S.W. will make list of recommendations for applicant: • Request for public comment. No public comment. Page 3 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 • Commissioner deliberation. 1. S.W. is surprised by Historic Review but relies on their judgment. Given the absence of a site plan and rudimentary concept rendering is not enough information. Wants more definition to site plan. Location of windows not achievable, makes her question to how realistic the alley facade is. 2. B.H. asks about SEQR & makes a motion to take a vote. A.B. states it’s a TYPE II, no action required. S.W. states she is not ready to vote on project. R.Y. echos similar sentiment. Site plan requested. Chair states he would like to also see a site plan. • Applicant response. 1. Applicant repeats Historic Review did not require brick or brick veneer on outer facing wall.  There are 3-4 other structures on the alley with concrete block 2. Applicant states, 2nd floor is just for storage. 3. Applicant in response to R.Y. states wood shop is on the 2nd floor; further responds to S.W., “storage & woodshop” 4. Applicant, in response to S.W. comment about façade, states he’s not as skilled in producing that degree of detail. Reiterates building material to be used. 5. In response to B.H., applicant confirms wall facing house to be brick. 6. In response to R.Y., applicant states its not a commercial workshop; dust control to be maintained by applicant. Confirms it’s more or less hobby use for small projects. 7. In response to A.V., states there is at 39 1st; States 30 ft includes the existing brick wall to 35 1st street’s carriage house. 8. Applicant agrees to S.W. request for a detail of building schematic. • B.H. Motions to Approve site plan: . . seconds. [motion is withdrawn due to lack of documents] Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan Sara Wengert Suzanne Spellen Barbara Higbee Anthony Mohen • Motion for______________________________________________________passed - . • S.W. makes a Motion to Table to May18th PC meeting. A.M. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to table item to the May 18 PC meeting. passed 5-0 . th PLPC 2022 0048 – Uncle Sam Garage Demo (101.45-3-2;) Site Plan Review – SEQR (Type I) The Applicant, Bryce Companies, LLC, proposes to demolish existing [condemned] parking garage structure and convert parcel into a temporary ground level parking lot to accommodate approximately 170 parking spaces along with accommodations for CDTA public transportation busses. • Applicant presentation. • Request for public comment. No public comment. • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant. 1. R.Y. sees opportunity for place making; wonders what drove design to flat lot. How did they arrive at # of spaces; did applicant consider a communal space within footprint of existing lot. 2. R.Y. asks how long is “temporary”? Page 4 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 3. R.Y. asks if its public or private. 4. How do you delineate the boarder of the parking lot? 5. S.S. asks where access points are; comments that she believes the applicant will need a fence to keep out general public if not public parking. 6. S.S. asks where is snow going to go in winter? 7. S.W. doesn’t agree with a fence because it would conceal activities in lot. Wants it to be “safe parking” and if there is any way to save trees, to make every effort to do so.  Suggests in lieu of a fence to plant more trees. 8. S.W. greatest concern is for the gravel lot; encourages pave because this project is not ‘officially’ linked to any further development. 9. S.W. Is there something in between pavement and gravel that could be utilized? 10. S.W.-How often do you have to stripe that? 11. S.W. why 2 types of gravel?  Why can’t applicant use permeable gravel across the entire lot? 12. S.W. comments: “hope and expects entire lot is used for parking up until the time that a construction permit is issued for the future project that would render the lot inaccessible; therefore it would not serve as a staging prep storage area until construction is commenced. I would suggest to fellow commissioners that, that be a stipulation.” 13. S.W. If after a year the gravel has created an uneven surface, will recompacting restore its level surface? 14. B.H. wants to see demolished. Thinks it does have to be gravel. Wants a maintenance agreement. Would like A.V. to comment. Can’t imagine that paving works. 15. Chair asks A.B. about revisions of SEQR analysis/determinations about demolition. • Commissioner deliberation. 1. R.Y. states if it were to be paved, the millings could be utilized; the Aspect of gravel had alluded him. 2. S.W. doesn’t know how you maintain that gravel lot for the duration of time proposed before further development and have it be successful.  Is there a detail that shows the composition of the gravel?  Concerned its going to be a mess.  Pushes back on the notion that it should be paved parking 3. R.Y. you can add calcium to make gravel firmer and dust down; will it be accessible for public parking on the weekend? 4. A.V. Use of subbase as pavement not ideal. Code requires a durable material that avoids dust and provides for a smooth surface.  Suggests using millings as top course.  Porous gravel is acceptable parking surface. • Is as durable as millings but doesn’t have the dust and unevenness of gravel. • Suggests a modification to that surface • If commission is not okay with timeline, to propose a bond for the project. • Entryways should be paved at least 30-50 Ft into lot.  Asphalt millings explanation 5. A.B. states 2 requests by applicant  Approval of a demo permit  Temp. use of parcel post demo • No concerns by demo • Bifurcate considerations due to time lapse from demo start and parking lot project. • Consider demo approval sooner; continue site plan review for later • Site plan is a temp use as surface parking lot o At no time was there a time frame on the temp nature of what is being sought after o If site plan approval is granted for temp use, it would be in perpetuity. Page 5 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 o A.V.’s suggestion of a performance bond would be a way to bypass those concerns. o Suggests time limit on site plan approval for surface parking lot. 6. S.W. raises further concerns along with R.Y. & B.H. /A.B. & A.V. explain benefits and consequences of bonding the project and further delays. 7. All commissioners agree that the demolition needs to take place but not the site plan. 8. A.V. suggests approving the demo, tabling the site review. S.S. seconds. 9. S.S. notes trees are gone and an expansion of parking surface toward 3rd St on proposed site plan.  Emphasizes the need to have something green as a buffer. A.V. agrees. • A.V. suggests a condition: “If trees are replaced, they have to be replaced 1:1, 2:1, etc.”  Emphasizes the need for the PC to consider this. 10. Chair consults A.B. about project motions for the evening. 11. SEQR considerations 12. Chair asks commissioners their opinion about demo and grass lawn. • Applicant response. 1. In response to R.Y., states this is a temp. use after demo. Demand for parking high so applicant would prefer to keep it so until plans for future development are advanced. 170 parking spaces. Does not have an answer to how long “temporary” is. Hopes plans will be submitted within 18 months. 2. This is private parking for existing tenants. 3. Boarder of parking lot—not to construct anything expensive. But there could be something. If commission is interested in something than perhaps something like planting or in keeping with a temporary use. 4. In response to S.S.—Entrance off River and 4th. 5. Utilize section of parking lot for snow removal; fence could be timber guiderail as just a thought. 6. In response to S.W., applicant says they ran numbers on cost of pavement and results exceed $200K. States crushed stone could eventually get repurposed. Paving would be too big a cost to applicant. 7. Details for gravel section  General crushed stone in southern part of lot. (Reviews on drawings)  Permeable sections for ADA in northern part of lot. (Reviews on drawings) 8. Applicant does not have a definitive timeline on striping. 9. Lose gravel higher elevations; permeable at lower for hydraulic/stormwater purposes & requirements.  Permeable gravel won’t hold up as well over time.  Required maintenance over time would see to level surfaces. 10. Parking on weekends will not be for public but can’t confirm because owner is a proponent of Farmers Market. 11. Suggests tabling the site plan review and going forward with the demolition. • B.H. makes a Motion to have Planning Commission Act as Lead Agency for SEQR review for the demolition: . . Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to have the Planning Commission Act as Lead Agency passed 5-0 . Page 6 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 • B.H. makes a Motion to Declare the demolition to be an Unlisted Action: . . Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Declare the demolition to be an Unlisted Action. passed 5-0 . • B.H. makes a Motion for the PC to make a negative declaration as per SEQR for issuance of the demolition permit: . . Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion for The Planning Commission to make a negative declaration as per SEQR for issuance of the demolition permit. passed 5-0 . • A.M. makes a Motion to authorize the issuance of a demolition permit with a post demo plan comprised of stabilizing grass with the further condition that if the demo requires the removal of trees, they must be replaced in kind x2 with a 3 inch caliber or greater and that no planting structures along Fulton Street shall be disturbed: S.W. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to authorize the issuance of a demolition permit with a post demo plan comprised of stabilizing grass with the further condition that if the demo requires the removal of trees, they must be replaced in kind x2 with a 3 inch caliber or greater and that no planting structures along Fulton Street shall be disturbed. passed 5-0 . • A.M. makes a Motion to Table site plan review application to the May 18th PC meeting: R.Y. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Table site plan review application to the May 18th PC meeting. passed 5-0 . Page 7 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 PLPC 2022 0045 – Country Garden Acres (112.71-5-13, 112.71-5-14, 112.79-4-30) [R1: Single Family residential, detached], Subdivision or Lot Line Adjustment – SEQR (unlisted) The Applicant, Country Garden Acres, Ltd., on behalf of the owner, Moray Homes, Ltd., proposes to remove the existing Dunleer Drive cul-de-sac and extend the road in support of a 12-lot single-family residential subdivision and construction of 11 single family residences, municipal infrastructure, and storm water management. • Applicant presentation. • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant. 1. R.Y. notes housing is really close together. • Request for public comment. No public comment. • Commissioner deliberation. 1. A.V. notes the options that pertain to the construction of a street.  The decision to take on a city street is not the PC’s but the City Council’s.  Any action that the PC take should be contingent on that.  The applicant could incorporate an HOA with approval of the AG, making extension of road, private.  PC could recommend for or against but couldn’t make any motions.  Fire code requirements need to be met 2. A.B. states what abilities the PC has on this occasion, notably to declare itself as Lead Agency. 3. S.W. wants a Landscaping plan that doesn’t have empty lawns since many trees will be cut down. • Applicant response. 1. Any concerns you have we’ll consider 2. “Just looking for concept buy-in tonight.” 3. In response to R.Y., architecture is not final. 4. Does the City have recommendations for planting of trees? • A.M. makes a Motion to have the Planning Commission declare itself as Lead Agency: S.S. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to have the Planning Commission declare itself as Lead Agency passed 5-0 . • B.H. makes a Motion to Table indefinitely: S.S. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Table indefinitely. passed 5-0 . Page 8 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 PLPC 2022 0051 – 3154 Sixth Avenue (90.63-5-1) [R-4 Neighborhood Residential, Medium to High Density] Site Plan Review – SEQR (unlisted) The applicant, QIMA LLC, is looking to develop a 4-unit multi-family building on a currently vacant parcel of land. • Applicant presentation. • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant. 1. Will material be durable (exterior) 2. R.Y. applauds the use of roof space; S.W. agrees project looks great. 3. B.H. asks about plantings. Wants a plantings plan.  A.B. suggests plan be submitted to City Staff. • Request for public comment. Yes/No public comment. • Commissioner deliberation. 1. S.S. is on board of Land Bank and recuses herself 2. A.V. states:  Reason why triggers review is that it’s larger than a 2 family • Applicant response. 1. Responds positively. States material has high heat resistance and is structurally intact. Product manufactured locally in Cohoes. 2. Wants to incorporate a vine growth on side of building. • S.W. makes a Motion to declare Planning Commission as Lead Agency for SEQR: R.Y. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Motion to declare Planning Commission as Lead Agency for SEQR. passed 4-0 . • A.M. makes a Motion to make a negative declaration for SEQR review. S.W. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Motion to declare Planning Commission as Lead Agency for SEQR. passed 4-0 . • B.H. makes a Motion for Site Plan Approval contingent upon the submission of a planting plan that is approved by City Staff: S.W. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X • Motion to Motion for Site Plan Approval contingent upon the submission of a planting plan that is approved by City Staff. passed 4-0. Page 9 of 10 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 PLPC 2022 0044 – 504 Second Avenue – Addiction Care Center of Albany, Inc. (80.63-3-9) [R4-Urban Neighborhood Residential, Medium to High Density] Site Plan Review – SEQR (Type II) Applicant proposes renovations and alterations of existing structure to accommodate 13 bedrooms within 8000 sf of space in existing 3-story building w/basement. Major improvements to kitchen, bathrooms, laundry, windows, MEP system, with general site improvements along with new handicapped ramps. • Applicant presentation. • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant. 1. B.H. wishes to hear from architect and details of project that are going to be altered. 2. Chair notes all trees will be removed.  Is there a plan to replace those trees? 3. Would like to see some sort of planting plan. • Request for public comment. No public comment. • Commissioner deliberation. 1. S.W. recuses herself due to her firm being the architectural firm hired for this project. 2. B.H. asks if PC has ability to conduct site plan review  A.V. confirms.  A.B. adds jurisdiction is limited to aspects of site itself. Specifically those being altered. 3. Chair confirms there is no change of use  A.B./S.S. confirms • Applicant response. 1. Goes through site plan alterations.  Includes cutting of trees. Many were random and overgrown/dying.  No plan to replace trees. Neighboring property also has some. • B.H. makes a Motion for site plan approval contingent upon 1 street tree replaced & landscaping provision plan to be reviewed and accepted by City staff: A.M. Seconds. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen Barbara Higbee Anthony Mohen • Motion for site plan approval contingent upon 1 street tree replaced & landscaping provision plan to be reviewed and accepted by City staff. passed 4-0. A.M. motioned to adjourn at 8:48 PM. B.H. seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Roddy Yagan X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to adjourn meeting at 8:48 passed 4-0. Page 10 of 10