Zoning Board of Appeals

City of Troy Agenda Zoning Board of Appeals November 6th, 2024 Administrative Item • SM motioned to adopt the September 4th meeting minutes; TD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Yvie Dondes X Zachary Carhide X Tamara Demartino X • Motioned to adopt the September 4th meeting minutes failed: 2:1. TM should have recused herself from voting as she wasn’t present at the September meeting. New Business. PLZBA 2024 0052 7-13 Park Ave (090.63-34), (090.63-35), (090.63-36), (090.63-37) [MU-1 / N-II] Area Variance. SEQR (Unlisted). The applicant, Fred Darguste, on behalf of the owner, Troy Community Land Bank, wishes to adjust the lot widths of four parcels to construct four new single-family homes. The following variances are requested for the lot line adjustment: o Proposed lot number 7 (90.63-2-4) requires a minimum lot width of 40 ft; 27.65 ft is proposed; a relief of 12.35 ft is sought. o Proposed lot number 9 (90.63-2-5) requires a minimum lot width of 40 ft; 21 ft is proposed; a relief of 19 ft is sought. o Proposed lot number 11 (90.63-2-6) requires a minimum lot width of 40 ft; 29 ft is proposed; a relief of 11 ft is sought. o Proposed lot number 13 (90.63-2-7) requires a minimum lot width of 40 ft; 21.65 is proposed; a relief of 18.35 is sought. o The maximum building frontage allowed is 80%; 87% is proposed for building 7; relief of 7% is requested. o The maximum building frontage allowed is 80%; 83% is proposed for building 11; relief of 3% is sought. • Applicant presentation: Fred Darguste • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. • Applicant responded to board members questions. • Request for public comment: No public comment. • Findings of fact: LZ moved to approve the area variance base on the following findings of facts: o Approving this variance will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood; the proposed structure is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. o The variance cannot be achieved by any other feasible method other than what is proposed. o In the context of what is proposed, this is not substantial. o The variance requested will not have an adverse environmental effect. 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 November 6th, 2024 • LZ motioned to approve the area variance SM seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting X Stephen Miner X Zachary Carhide (on zoom) Tamara Demartino X Yvie Dondes X • Motioned to approve the area variance passed 3-0 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: The applicant requested to postpone the application until a full board is present; however, the board members expressed a desire to engage in a discussion with the applicant prior to deferring the proposal. • Board members deliberation and questions to applicant. o LZ inquires whether the applicant can avoid splitting the sidewalk or minimize the extent of sidewalk splitting to preserve the integrity of the street frontage (River st). o LZ- How tall will the retaining walls be compared to the sidewalks. o Applicant response: Applicant indicated that they are trying on holding the street walls as much as possible. Applicant will talk with CMA to get the height of the wall. • Public comment- 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 November 6th, 2024 • SM motioned to table proposal to next month per applicant request and also to present additional documentation to the board, TD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Yvie Dondes X Stehen Miner Yes Zachary Carhide Yes (on zoom) Tamara Demartino Yes • Motion to table passed, 3-0. • SM motion to adjourn meeting at 7:30pm, TD seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Lindsay Zefting Yes Stephen Miner Yes Yvie Dondes X Tamara Demartino Yes Yes Zachary Carhide (zoom) • Motion to adjourn meeting at 7:30pm 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, November 6, 2024 PLZBA 2024 0022 125 River St (100.68-1-1. /1|3.23ac| DMU| Downtown II) Area Variance -SEQRA (Unlisted). Taylor Phase 2 and the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project At the Zoning Board of Appeals mee ng of October 2nd Pennrose explained in detail that the ramps from the Congress Street Bridge were not being removed and that they had to design around them. On October 9th at the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project mee ng, the presenters, Creighton Manning Engineers and The City of Troy showed maps and explained that the ramps are being removed. During Q&A, I asked how long the ramp removal had been part of the project and the City representa ve said that it was always the plan to remove the ramps. I men oned that at the October ZBA mee ng, Pennrose was adamant that the ramps were staying. I then asked the City if Pennrose was aware that the ramps were going to be removed as part of the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project. The City responded that Pennrose is aware that the ramps are going to be removed but the City is a slow moving ship and Pennrose does not want to wait for the ramps to be removed. I also asked if the ramps removal and construc on of new embankment/retaining walls parallel to River, Congress and Ferry Streets were included in the $10 million dollar budget for the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project. The City responded that the ramp removal and new retaining wall construc on are included in the budget. I would also like to add that at the October 2nd ZBA mee ng, Noah Freiburg of Pennrose stated that the Taylor 1 and 2 buildings were vacant and boarded up from 2005 un l they were demolished last year and that might end up being the fate of Taylor 3 & 4. I heard this as a threat that if their Zoning variances were not approved then they would not pursue the project. 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. The Labella TDMP (Transporta on Demand Management Plan) recommends 259 parking spaces for Taylor Phase 2. Parking 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  .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 addi on, THA vehicles have not been considered in the Labella TDMP. o At most mes there are between 6 and 8 THA cars and trucks parked in the exis ng Taylor 4 lot. 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?  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?  If the reason is that there are financing deadlines to meet or that they do not want to wait un l the Congress/Ferry Street Intersec on Improvement Project is complete, then these are self-imposed hardships 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