Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals September 4th, 2024 • SM motioned to approve minutes from August 7th, YD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Yvie Dondes X Stephen Miner X Lindsay Zefting X • Motioned to approve minutes passed 3-0. Applicants were informed by Rich Morrisey that a unanimous vote of the three-member board would be required for the application to be approved. If candidates would like, they can table until the following month. New Business PLZBA 2024 0036 212 4th St (101.69-11-1|0.03ac|MU-1|N-1) Area Variance –Type II The applicant, Cris Schrader, proposes renovating and converting the current first-floor space into an event space, as well as adding a second floor with micro-apartments. The required minimum transparency on the ground floor is 50%. The applicant proposes 29% on Fourth Street, 26% on Liberty Street, and 2% on Hill Street. Relief is sought for 21% on Fourth Street, 24% on Liberty Street, and 48% on Hill Street. • Applicant presentation. Laura Ryder (TAP, INC) represented the applicant. • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. • Applicant response: • Request for public comment: No public comment. • SEQRA – YD ask that the board find this proposal to be a type II action with sufficient information available upon which to make a determination that the project is not expected to cause significant environmental impact. • Findings of fact. LZ moved to approve the variance base on the following findings of facts: o The variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood, as the project similar to the rest of the structures in the neighborhood. o The benefit cannot be achieved by some other alternative. o The requested variance is not substantial. o The variance if granted will not have an adverse effect on the environment. o The alleged difficulty is not self-created. • LZ Motion to approve area variance; YD seconded Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Yvie Dondes Yes Stehen Miner Yes • Motion to approve area variance passed, 3:0. Written by Angie Apindem Executive Secretary. For additional information, visit: https://www.troyny.gov/government/boards- commissions/zoning-board-of-appeals/agenda-minutes/. 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 2 of 4 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals September 4th, 2024 Old Business PLZBA 2024 0037 75-81 Vandenburgh Ave (123.21-1-23.11|15.39ac |CC| N-3) Area Variance – SEQRA Type II The applicant, Ben Gingrich, on behalf of KeyBank, is proposing a new freestanding bank branch adjacent to Market 32 in Troy. The project will have a lobby with banking services and a drive through ATM with autoteller lane. The following variances are requested: o The required maximum front setback is 10 ft; 124.6 ft is requested; relief of 114.6 ft is sought. o The required maximum side back is 10 ft; 170.3 ft is proposed; relief of 160.3 ft is requested. o A minimum of two stories is allowed; one story is proposed; relief of one story is requested. o The code requires buildings to front the street directly; relief is sought to face the building entrance south. • SM motioned to table proposal to next month due to communication difficulty, LZ seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Yvie Dondes Yes Stehen Miner Yes • Motion to table passed, 3-0. PLZBA 2024 0022 125 River St (100.68-1-1. /1|3.23ac| DMU| Downtown II) Area Variance -SEQRA (Type I). The applicant, Taylor II LLC, is proposing to construct two new mixed-use buildings consisting of 308 residential units and 2,135 sf of ground-floor retail space. Each building will consist of a six-story building built on top of a one-story parking structure. The following variances are requested for the project: o Front side setback required is 0 ft min. – 10 ft max, 11.5 ft and 13.2 ft are proposed for building 2 and 3 respectively. Seeking relief of 1.5 ft and 3.2 ft for building 2 and 3 respectively. o Side setback required is 0 ft min. – 10 ft max, 24.6 ft and 35 ft are proposed for building 2 and 3 respectively. Seeking relief of 14.6 ft and 25 ft for building 2 and 3 respectively. o The applicant is seeking relief from ‘freestanding parking structures and surface parking lots shall not be built adjacent to the river or any public pathway easement to provide parking adjacent to the Hudson River. ‘ Written by Angie Apindem Executive Secretary. For additional information, visit: https://www.troyny.gov/government/boards- commissions/zoning-board-of-appeals/agenda-minutes/. 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 3 of 4 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals September 4th, 2024 o The applicant is seeking relief from ‘buildings with four or more floors shall have a step back of at least 10 feet on each floor above the third floor on the riverside to mitigate the visual impact of buildings from the river.’ o The required building frontage is 80% min-100% max, 44.8% is proposed for building 3, relief of 35.2% is requested. • The proposal was tabled at the applicant’s request. • SM motion to adjourn meeting at 6:35pm, YD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Yvie Dondes Yes • Motion to adjourn meeting at 6:35pm passed, 3-0. Written by Angie Apindem Executive Secretary. For additional information, visit: https://www.troyny.gov/government/boards- commissions/zoning-board-of-appeals/agenda-minutes/. 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 4 of 4 Zoning Board of Appeals 433 River St., Ste. 5001 Troy, NY 12180 Public Mee ng - Wednesday, September 4, 2024 PLZBA 2024 0022 125 River St (100.68-1-1. /1|3.23ac| DMU| Downtown II) Area Variance -SEQRA (Unlisted). Why should Troy let Pennrose propose a project and then a er receiving community and planning buy-in, change the project dras cally to make more money? Brief Background of the Pennrose Taylor Apartments Reconstruc on Planning Pennrose’s applica on to Planning in October 2020 had Phase 1 with 90 apartments and 38 parking spots. (.42 parking spaces per apartment) This was below recommended parking guidelines but was jus fied because the tenants that would be moving into Phase 1 generally did not have cars. A er the community mee ngs and the ini al submission of their proposed plans for all phases of the Taylor Apartments replacement, Pennrose showed up to the Planning Commission with a completely different proposal for Phase 1. At the Planning Commission mee ng Steve Strichman stated that Pennrose was not able to get the alloca on of 9% LIHTCs that they applied for and would be looking to a different program for government assistance. This new program requires that Phase 1 have 141 apartments (equal in number to those being demolished for the new Phase 1 building) He went on to explain that this would sa sfy the affordable housing requirements for the project and that Phase 2 and 3 would be market rate housing. Since this larger building le inadequate parking for Phase 1, Pennrose promised to construct 40 parking spaces in Phase 2 for Phase 1 residents. Phase 2 as now proposed has 308 apartments with 93 parking spaces for the Phase 2 apartments (.30 parking spaces per unit) Phase 1 is to be rented to tenants from the current Taylor 3 & 4 buildings. Phase 2 is now proposed as a mix of affordable and “workforce housing”. Workforce housing tenants mostly have cars, so how can you jus fy only .30 parking spots per unit? Please consider the following as they pertain to the Variances requested:  The project is too large for the site especially given the Applicant is trying to design around the ramps to the Congress Street bridge. All five of their requests for a variance arise from trying to fit a project that is too large inside of the bridge ramps.  The project needs to slow down and go back to a design based upon the one developed through many community and planning mee ngs. This plan was presented to the Planning Commission in October 2020. A rendering from that applica on is a ached for reference.  I have heard three reasons that the Applicant must design with the ramps remaining. All are ques onable: o The ramps are structural and can’t be removed.  Only a por on of the ramps are structural. The structural por on of the ramps ends at the pylon where the structural steel ends. This needs to be confirmed as part of the Congress Street Bridge Project. A Google Maps photo of the site showing this is a ached. o It is too costly to remove the ramps.  This can be incorporated into the Congress Street Bridge Project, which now has funding and is going to final design. I assume that this is what was planned in the October 2020 applica on. o NYS DOT has a permanent easement on the ramps.  While this may be true, you can request the NYS DOT to declare the ramp land surplus to their needs. This also can be done as part of the Congress Street Bridge Project.  The Applicant is reques ng five variances. Gran ng any of these variances sets an extremely bad precedent given the fact that the salt pile is finally being moved and extensive development of the riverfront south of this site is in planning.  I request that the Zoning Board of Appeals recommend to the Applicant that they slow down, and design based on the projected Congress Street Bridge Project.  With the ramps removed, the added land may allow the Project to be redesigned to be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.  I do feel that the Project will s ll have too many units and will be difficult to meet the Zoning/Parking requirements.   What is the rush to finalize a design when a major project going through the middle of their site is about to be finalized?  If the reason is that there are financing deadlines to meet, then this is a self-imposed hardship and not a valid reason for a zoning variance. Respec ully submi ed Russell Brooks 37 1st Street Troy, NY 12180 (518) 421-8194 rbrooks5147@gmail.com  By access or receipt, the User acknowledges, covenants and agrees that the documents, provided by Dattner Architects D.P.C., including but not limited to plans and specifications, in any media (the "Documents"), are copyrighted instruments of professional service. The User agrees that the Documents may not be used for any other project or for any use not expressly authorized in writing by Dattner Architects. The User further agrees that Dattner Architects shall have no responsibility or liability in connection with the unauthorized use, reuse, change or modification of the Documents in any manner by the User or any other party accessing the Documents. No representation is made by Dattner Architects as to the accuracy or scale of the Documents or that they reflect actual conditions. Use of the Documents is at the sole risk of the User or any other party accessing the Documents. The User and any other party accessing the Documents shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Dattner Architects, its principals, consultants, agents and/or employees from and against any and all claims, liabilities, damages, losses, judgments, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and related expenses, that may be incurred by Dattner Architects, its principals, consultants, agents and/or employees as a result of any and all unauthorized changes to or use of the Documents, including but not limited to any alteration to, modification of, deviation from, use as Shop Drawings, or additions to the Documents. Under no circumstances shall the transfer of the Documents and/or other instruments of service on or by electronic media be deemed a sale by Dattner Architects and Dattner Architects makes no warranties, either express or implied, as to their merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. Plotted: 10/8/2020 2:02:08 PM C B A 1 1 Revitalize Riverside: Phase 1 Phase 2 as originally planned and presented during the community 2 2 forums Phase 1 as originally proposed before being changed to the 7-story 3 3 building currently under construction. Phase 3 as originally planned and presented during the 4 4 community forums October 08, 2020 SD Submission Date I, I Scale 547 River Street WRT 143 Main Street Drawn By Key Plan 125 River Street 1 of Sheet No.: Project No. Revisions: DR Pilla 1301 N 31st Street Checked By 31-15 14th Street Key Plan: Civil Engineers 1700 Market Street, Suite 2800 Troy, NY 12180 Taylor I, LLC Nyack, NY 10960 - Structural Engineers Troy, NY 12180 Landscape Architects - Philadelphia, PA 19121 - Long Island City, NY 11106 Issue: SD Submission - Skyline Engineering Dattner Architects Tax Map ID: 100.68-1-1./1 Revitalize Riverside: Philadelphia, PA 19103 Cover Sheet © 2020 Dattner Architects D.P.C. 10/08/20 2006 DA DA - The Chazen Companies - - RIVER STREET Seal Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Engineers FIRST STREET ALLEY - tel 212 247 2660 1385 Broadway, 15th Floor - www.dattner.com - I I 7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __J ,·1·- ._v I New York, NY 10018 N µ, '1 T-001.00 Phase 1 This portion of North ramp up to structural point can Structural portion be removed of ramps end here This portion of South ramp up to structural point can be removed