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, June 15th, 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 Anthony Mohen (AM), Suzanne Spellen (SS), Roddy Yagan (RY), Sara Wengert (SW) Also, in Attendance Steve Strichman (Commissioner of Planning), Eric Ferraro (Assistant Planner) Special Meeting Troy Zoning Ordinance – Public Hearing The Troy Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed Troy Zoning Ordinance at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. The proposed ordinance and zoning maps and presentation materials are available for review at https://www.recode-troy.com/project-documents • Re Code Troy presentation: 1. Conducted by Steven Strichman.  Hopes adoption will be made by August 4th.  Overhauling a 1980’s suburban style zoning ordinance that did not protect Troy’s character.  Supports “green” infrastructure and better storm water management. • Commissioner comments and questions to applicant: 1. S.W. desires to see all city owned property that’s currently undeveloped gets designated as conservation. 2. R.Y. Just south of the cookie factory there is quite a bit of space. Not sure if its city owned. 3. S.W. states she’s particularly concerned with the parcel directly east of 54 Brunswick rd. being a planned development district. Her understanding is that the City owns that portion of land and implores the city to re examine the designation of that piece of property. • Request for public comment: 1. Liza Rodriguez, employee of TAP.  Loves the new ordinance.  Wonders about parking studies  Downtown: Has previously worked to define a historic sector that was more sacrosanct. Is happy to see more definition to historic designation, particularly the emphasis of higher rise buildings on perimeters of downtown and hopes to see more lower story buildings within core districts. Does not believe having buildings up to 5 stories in the core areas is appropriate. The outer ring should be up to 5 stories, and not 7.  Wants a larger setback for proposed construction of 3,5, & 7 story buildings.  Beeman Park: Asking it to be zoned as R1 and not R2  Against the idea of non-combustible 1st floors with wood framed construction above. 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 3 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022  The reason why Troy is intact as it is, is because we were poor, and we did not have all this money coming into us. When money starts coming in, we get large inappropriate projects. This new ordinance is our safeguard to protect us from unbridled development.  Development downtown should not be an easy feat for developers  Don’t think parking should be allowed on the ground floor of a main street in the downtown core. If parking is allowed, perhaps only facing a side street, not a main street. 2. Steven Maples, 92 Ida Street.  Like new code. Has 2 concerns: • 1. Doesn’t really understand the purpose of the 500 ft buffer for convenience stores. Strikes as anti-urban. Heard that Code requested this. o S.S.-->this has been over time and a major complaint in past. This was driven by the City Council. We are now trying to address what convenience stores sell (want more healthy foods). But this has been driven over the years by multiple departments and agencies. • 2. Looking at R1’s, thinks there’s a history of racism that comes from that zoning. R1’s reinforce discrimination. Also has numerous climate implications and encourages dangerous commuter scenarios. Thinks Troy should move towards eliminating R1 districts. “Single family designated homes are pretty much climate change denial in physical form.” • Limit the use of R2 as well. R2 designated areas in new code seem too generous. • Generally, very happy with new plan. • Commissioner deliberation. 1. R.Y. asks about the 500 ft buffer and if this is specifically catered to convenience stores.  His interpretation is not to precludes multi businesses from existing near each other, its to space out specifically that application [of intended convenience uses].  A.M. interpretation is that it’s being used to diminish something which people are saying they don’t want and that if there is a problematic business owner this buffer is a way of preventing an alternative ‘good’ business. This could be seen to be an unfortunate thing. 2. R.Y. wants to state for the record that he believes it’s important to have R1 zoned districts. Thinks its important to have a variety of districts. Suzanne S. agrees. 3. A.M. sees that the new code does in fact minimize the R1 districts to the east side. Thinks it’s a strength of current proposal. Thinks we should be moving away from R1 districts to allow for other types of uses. Encouraging development that’s less spread out and more pedestrian friendly. 4. S.W. If we were to recommend the adoption of new zoning code, could we do so with affording some consideration on the part of the consultant to implement some of those ideas without putting the code back out to the public.  S.S. states that this is a public hearing and that he doesn’t think we necessarily need a recommendation, but a recommendation is fine. All comments are all things we will consider. 5. Commissioners agree that there are no proposed changes to the current zoning code. S.W. states she mentioned her concerns for those planned development areas. 6. A.M. agrees with R.Y. that there should be more density in the downtown core. 7. R.Y. thinks new code made restrictions on density but hopes to see more growth in that area. Taller construction is not a negative. • Presenter response: 1. In response to S.W., Steven S. states that we did take care of that designation in some areas. Took all city owned property and changed them back to conservation. Some infill lots were not changed. Took a number of properties along Brunswick Road in south Troy and changed them to open space for conservation. We are open to changes to parcels that we may have missed. 2. In response to R.Y., S.S. states that those areas are not city owned. But we put in a request to keep it green space and provided incentives to developers in that location and others that are privately owned. 3. In response to S.W.’s comment, Steven S. states 76 Brunswick Road is Planned Development so we will give that another look and see about its change. Page 2 of 3 City of Troy Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) Planning Commission 16 March 2022 4. In response to R.Y.’s deliberation of 500 ft buffer around convenience stores, Steven S. states yes. Similar state requirements of buffer zones pertaining to cannabis sales will also be enforced. We could also have better enforcement. 5. R.Y. likes the discussion of the restrictions of parking on the 1st floor  Steven.S. states I don’t think there are restrictions. Much of downtown is in the flood plane. 6. Monica Ryan comments on what code says about 1st floor parking. What we have now…at street level, heights must be at least 13 ft. and you have to have a space with no drive aisles at least 20 ft back into bldg. so that those frontages can set up for shallow commercial or institutional uses in the future. 7. R.Y. suggests how to approach restricting the parking design on the first floor; maybe require some of that parking below street level/grade. • A.M. Motion to Recommend the City Council to adopt the draft ordinance with PC recommended changes that the council address 76 Brunswick & 171 Oakwood and that they take some consideration of the issue of ground level street parking in the downtown development area. 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 Recommend the City Council to adopt the draft ordinance with PC recommended changes that the council address 76 Brunswick & 171 Oakwood and that they take some consideration of the issue of ground level street parking in the downtown development area, passed 4-0. A.M motioned to adjourn at 6:57 PM. _._ 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 6:57, passed 4-0. Page 3 of 3