Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals October 2nd, 2024 Administrative Item The adoption of the September 4th meeting minutes was postponed until November 6th meeting due to a lack of a quorum of board members present. New Business. PLZBA 2024 0045 3075 Sixth Ave (90.70-3-1.4| 0.19 ac. | Two Family Residential |N -III Use Variance - SEQR (Unlisted). The applicant, David Downer, is proposing to use the above property, which previously received a use variance for 14 apartments, as a homeless shelter for women, requiring a use variance. • Applicant presentation. David Downer & Demeria Canty • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. • Applicant response. • Request for public comment: No public comment. • LZ motioned for a Negative Declaration (SEQR) of this type II action, ZC seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Zachary Carhide Yes Tamara Demartino Yes Yvie Dondes X • Motion for a Negative Declaration (SEQR) of this type II action passed 4-0. • Findings of fact. LZ moved to approve the variance base on the following findings of facts: o This is a reasonable and historic use of the property as a shelter. o The property is uniquely positioned to be used as a shelter. o The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. o The alleged hardship is not self-created. • LZ motioned to approve the use variance, SM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X Yvie Dondes X • Motioned to approve the use variance passed 4-0. 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 5 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals October 2nd, 2024 New 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. • Applicant presentation. Ben Gingrich • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. • Applicant response: • Public comment: Comment from Ms Philips: How will sewage and runoff from digging be managed? LZ responded that the zoning variances are not related to site plan review. The question would be best answered during site plan review by the planning board. The applicant responded that they plan to address potential runoff with a storm water management plan. • Findings of fact. LZ moved to approve the variance base on the following findings of facts: o The variances will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, rather, it will fit the design of the neighborhood. o The benefit cannot be achieved by some other feasible methods because of the site and grades of the roadway o The requested variance is not substantial while the numbers are large, it’s not substantial relative to the site. o The variance if granted will not have an adverse effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. o The alleged difficulty is not self-created because its an existing shopping plaza. • Conditions: The variance granted to construct a single story is specifically for this building’s footprints only. 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 5 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals October 2nd, 2024 • LZ Motion to approve area variance; TD seconded Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Yvie Dondes Yes Stehen Miner Yes Zachary Carhide Yes Tamara Demartino Yes • Motion to approve area variance passed 4:0. Old Business 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. ‘ 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. • Applicant presentation: Taylor II LLC • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. • Applicant response: • Public comment- o Public comment from Russel Brookes was in opposition to the variances requested. He stated that Pennrose could request the Department of Transportation (DOT) to waive their easements, allowing them to construct the project as per their original proposal. Public comment will be attached to meeting minutes. 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 5 City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals October 2nd, 2024 • LZ motioned to table proposal to next month for more documentation and to allow new members review project, SM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Yvie Dondes Yes Stehen Miner Yes Zachary Carhide Yes Tamara Demartino Yes • Motion to table passed, 4-0. • SM motion to adjourn meeting at 8:25pm, ZC seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Yvie Dondes Yes Tamara Yes Demartino Zachary Carhide Yes • Motion to adjourn meeting at 8:25pm passed, 4-0. 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 5 of 5 Zoning Board of Appeals 433 River St., Ste. 5001 Troy, NY 12180 Public Mee ng - Wednesday, October 2, 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 A er the 2019 and 2020 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 in December of 2021 with a completely different proposal for Phase 1. For a look at all the many community and resident mee ngs that took place in the development of the ini al proposal for the redevelopment of the Taylor Apartments please follow the link below and scroll to the end. h ps://troyhousing.org/taylor-apartments-redevelopment/ 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 would be market rate housing. 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”. Please consider the following as they pertain to the five 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. The 1st, 2nd & 5th items dealing with frontage and setbacks are a result of trying to fit the project between the 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. Building Step Back  The 4th Variance Request is for elimina on of the step back requirement for buildings on the river of 4 or more stories in height.  This should not be granted as it sets a bad precedent for future development on the river.  In a prior presenta on to the Planning Commission, they were asked why the needed this variance and their reply was that they required the 308 apartments to make the numbers work. This is a self-imposed hardship and not a valid reason for a variance. Surface Parking Lots  The 3rd Variance Request is for relief from the requirement that surface parking lots can not be built adjacent to the river or any public pathway easement  This should not be granted as it sets a bad precedent for future development on the river. Parking Since this larger Taylor Phase 1 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 123 paved parking spaces and 27 banked parking spaces (green space that will be paved if parking is required for the commercial spaces on the first floor) Of these 123 parking spaces, 40 are reserved for the Taylor Phase 1 building currently under construc on. The remaining 83 spaces will be for the Phase 2 apartments. To recap:  Taylor Phase 1: o 141 apartments (244 bedrooms) o 38 parking spaces plus 40 more when Taylor 2 is complete  .55 parking spaces per apt (.32 parking spaces per bedroom)  Taylor Phase 2 (proposed) o 308 apartments (554 bedrooms) o 83 parking spaces o .27 parking spaces per apartment (.15 parking spaces per bedroom)  Taylor 3 & 4 (current buildings to be demolished for Taylor Phase 2) o 125 apartments o 88 parking spaces  .70 parking spaces per apartment Workforce housing tenants, 183 of the proposed apartments in Taylor Phase 2, will mostly have cars, so how can you jus fy only .27 parking spots per apartment? In Conclusion  Why must Taylor Phase 2 be so big? o It is proposed as 308 apartments replacing 125 apartments.  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 10/08/20 © 2020 Dattner Architects D.P.C. 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 Revitalize Riverside Taylor I & II Update 1. How We Got Here – Community Engagement Process 2. Overall Schedule Update 3. Taylor I Updates 4. RFP Design Assumptions & Updates 5. Taylor II Conceptual Design 6. Taylor II – Project & Unit Amenities 7. Taylor II – Zoning Variances 8. Future Resident Income Restrictions 1 How We Got Here: Engagement Process Recap May 2019 Nov. 2019 – June 2024 Release of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) seeking qualified developers to partner with 11 THA + Taylor Resident them in the redevelopment of the Taylor Engagement Meetings Apartments. Feb. 2020 – October 2021 October 2019 4 Community Engagement Meetings THA+TLDC selected the Pennrose-led to arrive at Master Plan development team as their partner to redevelop the Taylor Apartments. June 2024: 4th Community Meeting Phase 1 update, Phase 2 presentation 2 WHAT WE HEARD FROM YOU - WORKSHOPS 3 TAYLOR APARTMENTS – PROJECT SCHEDULE Construction Fully Leased We are Complete Spring ‘25 here Fall ’24 Taylor I HUD Conditional Construction Construction Approval Entitlements Completion 1Q’24 – 3Q’24 Start 1Q‘24 Q2 ’25 Q2 ’27 DESIGN Taylor II HFA HUD Final Relocation Financial Fully Leased Applications Approval Taylor 3 + 4 Closing Q4 ’27 3Q’24 3Q ‘24 Fall - Winter ‘24 Q2 ’25 4 Taylor I – Project Overview • 141 Units. • 2,500 SF of ground floor Retail • Full Amenity Package: Fitness, Community Room, Playground, Storage, Roof Terrace. • First Priority to the 103 residents of Taylor 3 and 4. • Even if all Taylor tenants move in, there are still 38 units available for tenant earning up to 50% of the area median income. 5 Taylor I – Status Update • 65% Construction Completion. • Substantial Completion by Fall 2024. • 100% Occupancy by Spring 2025. • Proposed Commercial Tenants: • Troy Housing Authority Office: Housing services. • UPS Store: parcel assistance, printing, consulting. 6 RFP PLAN - DESIGN & KEY ASSUMPTIONS • Larger Site, resulting from the demolition of bridge infrastructure and retaining walls and reconfiguration of the intersection. • Leveled grade along River Street enabling a continuous retail profile through Division Street. • Taylor 3 and 4 replacement units less that the existing amount. 7 NO RAMP DEMOLITION – DESIGN & KEY ASSUMPTIONS • Bridge infrastructure and retaining walls will not be demolished. This infrastructure reduces the buildable area of the site constraining the future building footprint (i.e., smaller footprint than RFP ). • HUD requires the 1:1 replacement the existing 125 THA units. 8 TAYLOR APARTMENTS – MASTER PLAN Taylor I 141 Units 150k SF Taylor II 308 Units 385k SF Taylor I v Taylor II Taylor II 9 Taylor II Aerial Rendering – Updated Conceptual Design 10 Taylor II – Project Overview Congress Street River Street Division Street Front Street 11 Taylor II – Project Overview River Street Congress Street New Playground  Resident Courtyard - Streetscape  Interior Amenity Space  Off-Street Parking  Units 143 Retail 2,100 12 13 Taylor II – Project Overview New Playground  Division Street Resident Courtyard  Streetscape  Interior Amenity  Space Off-Street Parking  Units 165 Front Street 14 15 UNIT FEATURES • Washer/dryers in all units • Central air conditioning • Open floor plans • Efficient layouts • Ample storage • Accessibility features incorporated • Thermostatic controls • Dishwashers *Example Pennrose Apartments 16 Taylor II – Entitlements Zoning Variances Setback Relief • Proposed setbacks are a result of DOT and sewer easements on the site. Step-back Relief: • Primary façade is setback from Front Street maximizing viewshed protection from Hudson. • Proposed massing also protects viewshed from the city out towards Hudson. • Setback / footprint provides riverfront- view amenity for more residents of Taylor II Use Relief: • Open Surface parking provided to satisfy tenant demand aiming to prevent street overflow with cars from residents. • Green banked parking 17 Taylor II – Units and Tenant Income Purpose: Accommodate a range of household income levels and match rents Example: Veteran Searching for a job Salary: $10-15K annually Rent: $194 per month Units Income Example: Couple with Child 125* 30% - 50% AMI $743 - $1,114 Part time Cashier ($15/hr) + Full Time 125 60-80% AMI $1,263 - $2,236 Service Tech. 58 90% - 110% AMI** $1,800 - $2,400 Salary: $75K annually Rent: $1,910 per month (2 bedroom) Example: Working Professional *Amount required by HUD Emergency Room Registered Nurse Salary: $84K annually Rent: $1,800 per month (1 bedroom) 18 Q&A 19