Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

First, please rise to pledge allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation,

Here.

Present. All right.

Present.

Wait, hold on one second. Hold on one second.

Yeah, all right. All right. So have a motion.

Paul, can you test your mic?

Well, let's have Tamara.

What did I do?

No, it's not on.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay. We have three orders of business tonight. And the first one is PLZBA20260047. If you please come up to the podium.

What about adopting the minutes?

Oh, we got to adopt the minutes. Okay.

I make a motion to adopt last month's minutes.

I'll second. Okay.

Approve.

I would vote to approve.

Approve.

Approve.

Okay. State your name, where you reside, and your affiliation with the project.

Ken. Please. Is this one on?

Yes.

You might want to hold it. Hold it. All right. Do you hear me? Yep.

Yeah. All right. My name is Courtney Davis. I'm a civil engineer with Lella Associates. I reside in Greenwich, New York. With me tonight is Kristen Kneig with Unity House of Troy. And I'm just going to share my screen real quick, if I can get this. Oh, actually, Angie, can you allow sharing?

Yeah. Please. Yeah. You know what? We can't hear you very well.

Hello?

Just yell at us.

I'm not very good at it, but I'll try.

Yes. It's the same thing. All right. Everyone hear me?

Oh, we got a microphone.

You can point to your screen there.

All right, thank you.

That's better.

Okay, so we are here tonight to discuss the required zoning variances for Unity House of Troy's proposed lot line adjustment between their 185 Earl Street parcel, which is on the left, and the 2428 Fifth Avenue parcel located on the right, as denoted by the two different colors, orange and blue, for pre and post. The image on the left shows the existing conditions prior to the lot line adjustment. As you can see, the 185 Earl Street parcel is pretty much completely composed of their brand new teaching kitchen facility. And the property on the right is composed of an existing residential structure on the Fifth Avenue side of the property. And it has a recently demolished garage located on the Earl Street side of the property. Under proposed conditions, the goal of the lot line adjustment is to be able to construct a patio space and outdoor cooler to support the teaching kitchen and have all of the supporting uses be on the same parcel as the teaching kitchen itself. So as you can see, the existing teaching kitchen building will remain. New patio space and cooler preliminary site design is shown beneath, as well as on the 2428 Fifth Avenue parcel, the existing residential structure will remain. So the lot line adjustment will result in the creation of two non-conforming lots, which is why we are here tonight. However, the proposed variances will allow for the new supporting uses to be on the same parcel as the teaching kitchen.

You got it.

Yep, no problem. So there are three required variances with this project. Two for the 185 Earl Street parcel and one for the Fifth Avenue parcel. So the first one for 185 Earl Street is the side lot or side yard. setback, we're proposing a 25 foot setback where a 10 foot maximum is required. For building frontage, we're proposing a 50% building frontage for the 185 Earl Street parcel in a zone that requires 60% minimum. For the 2428 Fifth Avenue parcel, for impervious lot coverage, we're proposing a 97% impervious lot coverage where 80% maximum is permitted. So getting into some more of the details. So for the side yard variance, we're seeking 15 feet of relief. So this variance is necessary because as you can see, the existing 185 Earl Street parcel is very shallow in depth, I guess you could say. So there's no space behind it to really allow for a sufficiently sized patio and cooler to support the teaching kitchen. And the only feasible space to locate it is on the existing 2428 parcel to the north. Additionally, Earl Street primarily serves as a rear lot line for most of the other parcels on the block. This image here, I know it's kind of small, shows that the white building, which is the old structure that has been demolished and rebuilt as a teaching kitchen, as well as the large residential building at the corner of Vander Heiden, are really the only two buildings fronting Earl Street. And as well, there are no new buildings or building modifications proposed as part of our patio space and cooler project. So moving on to the building per frontage variance, a lot of the same justification as with the side yard.

Like on that photo, where is that going?

Yep.

Please.

Where this is going? Yep. So this white building right here, the little tiny one, so that's since been demolished. So they've got their new teaching kitchen there. And then the lot here, you can kind of see the black is the old garage that got demolished and then the residential structure up here. These are just two rear yards and then the large residential structure at the corner.

I have a question. Yep. Only because I don't have that in front of me. It's hard to see. Yeah, no problem. Who owns 185 Earl and who owns 24285?

Both of them are owned by Unity House.

That's important.

Yep. Thank you for asking.

They're not merged.

Correct. They're two separate parcels right now.

That was my next question.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- yeah and I didn't describe it very well, but if I jump back to the other figure, so the lot line adjusts to back. HAB-Masyn Moyer- The line adjustment, so this figure on the left, the red lines, which I know is probably also very hard to see are the existing hotlines the red lines on this figure are the existing hotlines to remain with this blue line being the new division between those two parcels.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So the. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, pink portion. or whatever you call it, salmon portion of 2258 or whatever that is going to be transferred to 185 or vice versa.

Correct. Yep. Yeah. So this zone of the project site is up to the parcel for 2428. It's going to be transferred to 185 Earl Street.

Okay.

All right. Good to keep going.

Yeah. So that's variance one. No.

Maximum side setback of 10 feet. Okay.

All right. So the second variance is for the building frontage. So we're seeking 10% relief because as we said, there's a 50%, or sorry, 60% minimum required in the zoning district. So the parcel is 50 feet wide. The new building is 25 feet. So really the variance we're requesting is for five feet, which from what we believe does not seem to be a super noticeable difference. But in addition to that, again, similar to the side lot line or the side setback variance, Earl Street primarily serves as a rear lot lines. So again, the addition of this large, pretty much green space or outdoor space now wouldn't be a very noticeable change to the neighborhood because there's so many adjacent.

Is that the patio space then? Yep. Yeah.

This right here. And then the cooler will be tucked in the back. And again, no new buildings or modifications to the existing building are proposed as part of the project. So the last one, now jumping up to the 2428 Fifth Avenue parcel. So for impervious coverage variants, we're seeking 17% relief. However, it's important to note that the existing lot is a non-conforming lot with respect to this, with 93% impervious coverage. And also, as the project as a whole, as part of building the new patio and the cooler, there's going to be pervious materials used on site, which will actually result in a reduction in a pervious cover between these two parcels when you combine them. And the only other new item to note on that is that there are no new impervious surfaces proposed as part of the slot line adjustment on this parcel. It's just simply a factor of, you know, it's a highly impervious lot today. And since we're reducing the size of it, it makes the impervious coverage percentage go up. But I believe that's all I had for you guys. So if you have any other questions, comments, feedback, we'd love to hear.

So you're not merging them both on the same page?

Yes. So there will still be two separate parcels. Is that what you're asking?

Yes. Can I ask why not just make them one parcel, like put them as one property? If you own them both, why not make it one? That's my question. It might be a dumb question.

So I wanted to clarify something because I think there might be a misunderstanding. bottom portion there that you're not showing the salmon, the salmon, that will all be one deed.

Yes. One deed or one section of block and lot?

No, she said one deed.

Well, there seems to be, because lot lines.

One property, one parcel. So this will have one section.

So the lot line between 185 and 22 for this salmon colored parcel will no longer be in existence. You're merging that.

Correct.

You're selling that portion to yourself for the other lot. Essentially.

Right. Essentially just relocating where the division is. So there'll still be two separate parcels when we're done.

So if you're not, you're confusing me when you say that. Okay. It's a lot line adjustment. It's a lot line adjustment. I understand that. So, but it's between two lots, right?

So she's taking a chunk of the blue and adding it to the red.

Yeah.

Which are owned by the same thing.

I understand they're all owned by the same thing. Will...

The same number of lots. Is that what you're asking?

Are there going to be three lots by the time we're done here? No, two. Start with two. So show me what 185 will be, the outlines of 185. Yep. When you're done.

Oh, yeah. That's the salmon collar. So this is basically square.

And what will be 22?

The leftover rectangle at the top here.

Okay. So you have a lawyer who's going to draft those descriptions? Yes.

Okay. Say you sell this lot somewhere in the future, and I wanted to come buy the salmon or the pink. I would buy all of them.

What color is it? So right now we have an easement. We asked for an easement when we first started the project. I think it's like 15 years.

That's what you originally gave yourself, an easement. Would you need a variance if you put it all as one lot, though?

I guess that would be a question of what the front would be.

You would still need it in the front.

I think they would.

Okay.

I don't have any questions. I think it sounds fabulous.

Yeah. How about the public? Does the public have any questions or any online? No. This is like a technicality. Do you have a motion for the secret?

You want me to read the secret? In regards to PLZBA20250047, as supported by the staff report, I ask that the board find this proposal to be an unlisted seeker action with sufficient information available for a negative declaration.

Second.

Approve.

I would vote to approve. Approve.

Approve.

You can do if you want. You want me to do it?

I don't.

Yeah, go ahead. All right, which were it wasn't ready. I can I got me Chris. I move that the board approve the variance. Are you doing do them individually?

Yeah, we need three.

In regards to PLZBA20260047, I move the board approve the first variance where a maximum setback of 10 feet is permitted on 185 Earl Street, and the applicant proposes 25 feet relief of a 15 feet is requested. the variance will not create an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or be a determinant to nearby properties if it is granted because it's really improving an empty lot.

Second.

Approve.

Opposed to approve. Approve. Approve.

In regards to the second variance for PLZBA20260047, where a minimum building frontage of 60% is required on 185 Earl Street, the application is proposing a 50% relief of 10% is requested. The following variance will not create an undesirable change to the character HAB-Jacques Juilland, character of the neighborhood for or be a deterrent or to nearby properties, if it is granted because it's such a small change and you own both of the buildings and will again make it look nicer.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, proof. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Proof.

in regards to the third variance request for PLZBA20260047, where a maximum impervision surface coverage of 80% is permitted on 22428 Fifth Avenue, 97 is proposed, a relief of 17% is requested. I move that the board approve this variance because it is not substantial enough to really make a change to the property. It's very little that you're changing.

Second.

Approve.

Approve. Approve. You're all good. Good luck.

Go make it pretty.

The next order of business is PLZBA-2026-0054106, Adams Street.

up to the podium please state your name where you reside and your affiliation to the project uh good evening ladies and gentlemen of the zoning board so my name is constantino this is my wife alexandra okay uh we are residents of 108 adams street and this is our property that we're looking to build a bathroom uh on the 106 adams section of the property I have a letter from our design professional and if it's okay I'll read it to you guys and just kind of a overview of what the project is. Essentially we're working with Adam Patella. He's a licensed architect in the state of New York practicing in Troy. Unfortunately he wasn't able to attend but that's what this letter is going to be. It's basically going to be a brief narrative of what the project is, what we're looking for in terms of variances and what the current state is. So the parcel at 106, 108 Adams Street, it presents an interesting zoning scenario. The parcels were formerly separate, each with single family homes on them. At some point, the majority of the home at 106 Adams was demolished with the exceptions of the front and back masonry walls. The sidewalls of the homes were party walls to the adjacent homes. The majority of the interior footprint of the demolished home was infilled and covered with a concrete pad. The still remaining buildings of 272 4th Street and 108 Adams Street, as well as the remaining masonry walls of 106 Adams combined to create a courtyard. There is about a 12-inch drainage channel around the perimeter of this property. Eventually, 106 and 108 Adams Street was combined into one parcel with the existing home of 108 Adams Street and the resulting courtyard of 106 Adams. Alexandra and Constantine want to build a small bathroom addition. This addition is to be built within this courtyard area. The only feasible location for this addition is the northeast corner of the courtyard, where the only logical connection to their existing home exists. This addition would be built within the required rear setback and outside of the required minimum side and front setbacks. So regarding 285.19 points one through four, one, this addition will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. The addition will be barely visible from the street due to the existing masonry walls and the appearance of the addition will match the surrounding buildings. Two, the benefits sought by Alexandra and Constantine cannot be achieved in any other way. The existing home on the parcel does not have room for an additional bathroom and adding additional story to that home is not feasible. Three, our project and requested variances are not substantial. The entire addition is 11 foot by six by six foot, about 70 square feet and a single story. Four, this addition will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environment conditions of the neighborhood as it is not increasing the amount of impermeable surfaces. There's already an existing impermeable concrete pad in the area of the addition. Runoff from the addition will be directed into a roof gutter and fed into the existing perimeter drainage area. I appreciate your time, Adam Patello. That's not me. That's Paul.

Yes. So you own 106 and 108?

Correct.

And you reside at 108? Correct. And 106 is basically an empty lot with the two exterior walls, and you want to put this small addition in?

Correct.

Got it. Thank you.

I don't have any questions.

First of all, he did his homework. He cited all the various requests.

Is that the rear of 108?

That shed looking, that's the bathroom.

That is the bathroom we're looking to add, correct.

That's on the back of what?

That's on the inside of the courtyard. It's in the northeast corner of the courtyard space. Okay.

And the little addition that you saw was built behind this wall, essentially.

Okay, I get it. It's the side of your house.

Yeah.

So the courtyard, the umbrella there, is it going to be...

The addition would be basically what you just saw with the drive. It's coming off there. Gotcha. Okay.

So this former house...

Looks very nice.

Is there any questions out there in the public or online?

Okay.

All right.

In regards to PLZBA.

20260054, as supported by the staff report, I ask that the board find this proposal to be a Seeker Type 2 action with sufficient information available upon which to state that no determination is necessary or required.

Second.

Approved.

I would approve. Approved.

Do you want to take that one?

Rick, do we have to be separate too? Oh, yeah. Okay.

So let's see. I move that in regards to PLZDA 20260054, which has four... area variance requests. The first request is a relief of four foot six from the maximum setback of 10 feet. They're proposing a 14 foot six inch relief or setback with, so the relief is four foot six inches. The variance will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I don't personally think it's substantial to the neighborhood. It's substantial to them, but and it will not have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. Zach, do I have a second?

Second. Approve.

I vote to approve.

Approve.

Approve. In regards to the second area of variance, The applicant is asking for a relief of five feet to the minimum rear setback where five feet is required. They're proposing a rear setback of zero feet. I move that we approve. Again, it will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. It is not substantial to the neighborhood and will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.

I would second that.

approve. Number three, I move that we, the board approve the third request of a relief of seven feet that is requested for the side setback where 10 feet is permitted. The applicant is proposing a 17 foot. Again, I do not believe that it is substantial and it is not going to have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. And it is not a detriment to anybody.

A second. Approve.

Vote to approve. Approve.

Approve. And lastly, the last The request is for a relief of 14.3% for the impervious surface coverage. 80% is permitted. The applicant is proposing a 94.3, which creates a relief of 14.3. I move that we allow this, that we approve this. It does not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood. It is not substantial with no ill effects to anyone.

I second, and I also approve.

Approve.

Approve.

Approve.

Okay.

There you go. Good luck. Congratulations.

Okay. The next order of business is PLZBA 20260055 865 2nd Avenue. Okay.

No, I think the planning board is the lead agency. The planning board has already done that. So this is just the introduction.

And they know this.

I hope they do. The planning board has declared intention to act as lead agency. 30 days have not lapsed yet. So the planning board has not taken any secret action.

Okay.

So this is why I

Good evening, everybody. Yeah. Good. Yeah, we're good. Very good. Good evening, everybody. My name is Andrew Shriver. I will be presenting on the Lansingburg Gateway Project, otherwise known as 851-867 Second Avenue. I just want to note I'm a little sick tonight, so go easy on me. But Kelsey from LaBella, our excellent site engineer, she's not. So feel free to go hard on her. Forgive me. So we're here tonight to introduce the project. We'd request that you guys schedule a public hearing for the project at the next meeting and properly notice that public hearing. The Lansingburg Gateway Project is a mixed use project on 6.27 acres in the neighborhood for development intensity zone with a resilient waterfront and flood risk overlay. So I just want to sort of set the stage for the conditions in which we're contemplating this project. The development team is led by myself, Andrew Shriver, Attic Labs, based in Newburgh, New York, Rockabill, Development and Consulting, a very experienced affordable housing developer. We might also say workforce housing with multiple projects throughout New York State. They've done a lot of work in New York City, in addition to the Albany area, all the way to Buffalo. They have a long track record of securing financing for these projects and working with the state agencies, HCR, to secure funding, right? These are sophisticated operators who understand the debt markets and the tax credit markets and are able to go out and secure financing, which is critical for a project like this. It's critical for any project, especially a project where you have a very complicated set of sources. The development teams then rounded out by AHC, which is our development and construction partner, HC is a third generation construction company led by Keith P. Leiboldt and Keith H. Leiboldt. They have built thousands of units of housing. I've worked with them on multiple projects. They are an excellent GC. In addition, they have a property management company, which we work with. And so I just note that.

Oh.

Who's the GC?

So who do you work for? That was going to be my one question.

Let me just let her.

Yep.

Tech support.

I don't know if I can work that way. Can I ask questions in the same?

Yeah. You want a longer piece of paper? No. Okay, do you have a little pen?

Okay, I'm going to keep talking.

So I have my own company, Attic Labs, right?

So you work for Attic Labs. That was my question.

I'm a sole proprietor, and so I partner with... partner with other development firms, bring these projects together, right? Everybody brings a piece to the table.

And you're based out of Newburgh, you said? Correct.

Okay. Originally grew up in New York City, if that's, you know.

Are you ready?

Seven fish sticks or something?

Yeah, I didn't want to say that. The guest network.

Yes. I can't even get out into the room.

Oh, no.

I'm not even joking. They changed the password. I'm not supposed to say that.

Oh, no. No, it's just embarrassing. No, I mean, it's not like... It's fine. It's Joe. Yeah. Oh, I forgot my water. Oh, wow. Yeah.

Okay.

I can try to make my hotspot available if it's not working.

So try connecting to Zach's phone or something. Zachary's S24.

She's in charge of the real estate. Let me know.

Yeah, that's not optimal. Oh, there we go.

Even if you're in a net zero, that's okay. Yeah. As long as you're... Yeah.

All right, I'm going to look at this rockabilly.

I apologize.

Sorry.

These are projects that members of this team together and individually have completed. Zero Place in New Paltz, New York was a LEED Platinum building completed in 2023. It won a number of awards and was 46 residential units in addition to 8,400 square feet of retail along the Hudson River Rail Trail there. It's quite a successful project right in the downtown. You can see various design elements are oriented towards efficiency. So smaller windows, solar panels throughout. And so this was really a first attempt with new technology to erect a zero energy building. So I just note that in the context of the aesthetics of the building. The lofts at the Foundry was a project I did with AHC. It was completed in the fall of 2024. It was a long-stalled, broken condominium deal that the portion of which we completed had sat vacant for 40 years. We won it out of a bankruptcy auction. It was a very unique and challenging project given the history. Am I going too long?

I'll ask a question while she's troubleshooting again. Sorry, guys. Of those three, were they workhouse housing or were they workforce? Yeah, thank you. Foundry.

The loss of Foundry was a store tax credit deal. Okay. It was a...

We are going to get there.

I apologize for the... And then one law I have to speak to is a workforce housing project, 145 units, ground up with about 10,000 square feet of retail on the last privately owned... insofar as they agree that its aesthetic character and sizing was appropriate adjacent to the first historic site in new york state and h didn't pop up with anything did it ask you was it asking for a password or something

for sharing it or whatever yeah as long as it's there Do you have it on flash drive or anything?

We don't like to run it. I just really want to hang out. Oh, I'm sure.

It's not going to happen again, I promise. So you can see a rendering of one Lafayette there. That project is scheduled to start in November of this year. We're quite excited about it. So that's all to say every member of this team has a lot of experience doing multifamily projects of this size, many of which are award-winning. The design team for this project is led by Kelsey from Labella. She's our site engineer, one of the best site engineers I've had the pleasure of working with to date, as well as Chris Berg, who could not be here tonight for a family reason, of Fifth Street Architecture, with whom I've worked extensively and is a great project architect. So I just want to note the site today, as you know, a former price drop for Eckerd Drugstore and Burger King. It sat vacant for approximately six years. If not longer, I believe price drop or shut down in 2018 or 2019. So I think, you know, any conversation about this site should start with it has sat vacant. It should not be vacant. It is an excellent site. We'd like to do something amazing there. I'm going to hand it over to Kelsey now to talk a little bit about the comprehensive plan. I may jump in just to discuss architectural.

Yeah, so the city has the 2018 comprehensive plan which noted the Second Avenue district as a key northern gateway into Troy. So in that plan there was actually this map that's shown on the slide, which had a conceptual kind of redevelopment of that area. So specifically for this site, it did consider, you know, putting the buildings with a strong street frontage. And in that scenario, that pushed the parking to the rear of the property. So when you compare that against the 2023 zoning code, even that concept did not comply with the intent and the future vision of the city. So I think what we're trying to do with our project is kind of balance both the need to provide that strong street frontage, as well as protect the views and provide a strong green space buffer at the riverside. So, and as part of the comprehensive plan, it did recognize Second Avenue as a commercial corridor, potential mixed use. So in alignment with what we are currently proposing, and it did have an extension of the Riverwalk from 123rd Street all the way over to the Waterford Bridge. So the project as a whole, what we've got is 205 workforce housing residential units. It's gonna be a good mix of one, two and three bedroom units across the three buildings. There is about 11,000 square feet of ground floor commercial spread across the frontage of each of the three buildings. In terms of those uses we're considering you know really community oriented complimentary uses, such as like a daycare gym or fitness center that could be used by both the public and potentially the tenants, like a cafe or coffee shop and some general retail is kind of like what we're thinking initially for this neighborhood. uh the property has about 766 feet of frontage on second avenue as well as the waterfront and as part of the design we are providing 205 off-street parking spaces which is a one-to-one ratio for the units in addition we are looking to add 21 on-street parallel parking spaces on the west side of second avenue So we prepared a transportation demand management plan that shows that that parking is adequate to support the proposed uses. So as the site exists today, it does not conform to either the 2023 zoning ordinance or the vision of the city for this area. The property sits at over 82% impervious. The primary existing building, the former Price Chopper, is set back 150 feet from the frontage, but only 50 feet from the river. The existing rear access drive is set back only 25 feet from the river. And then there's the excessive parking lot at the frontage that has zero setback from that frontage. So the site layout was carefully designed to balance the residential and commercial density with parking and with the need to establish a pedestrian oriented streetscape protection of the view corridors at both 124th and 125th Street that exists today. as well as providing adequate screening of the parking lots at both the frontage and the waterfront. In alignment with the development intensity zone, the design incorporates a complete streets approach, which includes the parallel parking spaces on 2nd Avenue, new granite curb, a porous maintenance strip, new concrete sidewalks, and a strong commercial presence within each of the three buildings at the frontage. So in trying to protect and screen the parking to the best of our abilities, we have the two parking lots tucked in between the three buildings with significant landscape screening on both sides. The U-shaped configuration of building two allows for a large central courtyard, and there will also be a playground proposed for the tenants at the rear of building one. I'll also note that the current design that we're presenting to you today reflects some changes from the initial submission materials that you received, because with the scale of this project, it's rapidly progressing through design. So what you see on screen is what was submitted on Monday to the planning board. So most notably the changes that occurred, building one shifted south to provide a 10 foot step back where I think we had about 27 feet previously. So it's now 10 feet from the Southern property line. The exterior ramps and stairs that were previously proposed at the residential entrances have been removed and there will now be a double level lobby that will have elevators from the ground floor to get up to the residential level. So with those two changes, that really opened up the area between the three buildings to allow for more green space and a new, more prominent public pedestrian pathway from the CDTA bus stop through the southern parking lot to the rear to the river. And along that pathway, there are significant landscaping features and seat walls to really make it a nice pedestrian space.

Bottom of your picture is the road. Top of your picture is the river.

Yes. Okay. Yep. So there are a bunch of site constraints that are really driving the need for many of these variances. So most significantly is the 100-year floodplain. So the entire site is within that floodplain. And that requires that the residential level be elevated two feet above the design flood elevation. So to put that in perspective, the second avenue is roughly around like 28, 29 elevation. And the... required elevation for the first floor residential is 36.2. So we really have to elevate that residential to be able to make it constructible within the floodplain. And then the frontage will have ground level commercial that will be accessible on the street.

If they get flooded.

So the pink or red are the actual buildings.

So those are the residential portions of the building that will be elevated.

Where's your commercial portion?

Is in front of those along 2nd Ave. Oh, OK. So it's a full width of each of those buildings at the frontage. So.

It should show the side section. It's elevation or it's very confusing to understand.

So what's underneath? Like if you just have the commercial property on the bottom gray part of the darker salmon will haul it. What's underneath that, like just an empty space?

It will be fill. Okay. Yeah. So the residential lobbies will go down to the ground level, the commercial level to bring it up. And then the first floor level will fill. Gotcha. Yep.

So currently there's no parking on the west side of 2nd Avenue there. Correct. How do you Are you going to make the road narrower?

Can you show me where that is on the map too?

Where the parallel parking is? Can you see the cursor? Yeah, I can see it. So all along this frontage, we have parallel parking proposed. So the existing CDTA bus stop is here. So there's an existing bump out at that bus stop that projects into the road. So that is staying exactly as is. And then the curb does bump back now what we are proposing is to bump it back an additional two and a half feet towards our property to provide the eight foot stall depth for the parallel parking moving the curve towards the building yes or towards towards the buildings towards the buildings

So let me ask a question. So if I'm going to buy something at one of these commercial spaces, I'm really not going to be allowed to park in the parking lot. I'm going to have to use parallel parking, correct? Yes. The street parking. So they're not going to be like any major anchor stores or anything like that. That's too bad. It'd be nice if there was an anchor store there, which would draw the whole community.

just want to go back and comment on what you said. If I go to the coffee shop, if I go to the gym, where do I park?

In the parallel parking spaces.

And how many spots are there?

21.

There's 21 parallel parking spaces.

Where are these parking? Am I parking on 2nd or is there public parking allowed inside of That's good.

Presently, we had not intended to allow. Sorry. Presently, we had not intended to allow public parking within the interior parking lots. The intention of this development is to promote a walkable community. The street, the retail is street facing. We have 21 spots along Second Avenue. Given the rotation that you're going to see, we believe that is sufficient. Our traffic demand management plan has also supported that that is sufficient.

So you have 205 apartments, 205 parking spots in your lots.

Correct.

And 21 additional ones for parallel parking on Second Street.

Correct.

But the parking on Second Street would be public and available to anybody who wants to park there at any time. It's not restricted.

Certainly, we are open to suggestions from the planning department about how those parking spots should be signed. So sometimes in retail-oriented areas, you might put a limit on parking of an hour or two. You might not allow overnight parking to ensure people don't park there who are local residents. In other words, you want to make sure that that parking is available for the retail spaces. So there are a lot of ways.

I'm forcing that when a lot of Lansingburg is rental property and people or tenants are looking for a place to live. land or park their car, I think you'd be well served to provide parking within the parameters of your parking lot for those commercial storefronts in addition to the 205 that you've adequately planned for your apartment.

Noted. I'll take it under advisement and confer with our civil engineer as well as the planning board.

Um, somebody had asked about how we were modifying the roadway. So we do have a modified striping plan right now. Second Avenue, unfortunately is, is not very well striped and it's very wide. So it's kind of a free for all there's it's technically wide enough for two lanes in both directions. Um, and folks coming from Waterford, especially like it is, you will see like two lanes of vehicles driving south. Um, so what we are proposing in addition to the parallel parking, which will be set back from like the CDTA curb line is. Single 13 foot lengths in each direction, which would be sufficient for a shared bicycle lane and then an 11 foot turn lane in the center. Um, and so those would be defined striped lanes, but those are from the public on the second day. The parking. Yes.

Okay.

have you have you just out of curiosity now have you done a traffic study to understand the people coming in from waterford taking that right going past the. Walgreens I think it is and then there's an empty lot and then you're a lot like and then you're gonna have somebody coming in and parallel parking so I just think that could be a. traffic congestion there?

So we performed a site access and operational analysis specific to the traffic flowing through those two signalized intersections at 124th and 125th. And with slight modifications to the signal timing, they actually operate extremely well for the traffic. The current traffic is in addition to the traffic generated by the project.

The only thing I'm concerned about is you're saying a gym and a coffee shop. I mean, if you go to a gym, I mean, I don't know how big the gym is going to be. It's not going to be a planet fitness or anything.

just doesn't seem like there's enough parking for the public that's my opinion i don't you know i i would just say you know the the purpose of the gym to some extent it is it is a wider community benefit insofar as the intention were a gym to be located right i get that yeah restricted to tenants only no So the point would be that we have a gym that tenants can use, and should people from the community want to utilize that gym, they would also be able to sign up, have a membership, and access it. Now, I just want to say those are general ideas of what those retail spaces could be. It is hard to determine this far out in advance exactly what they would be.

If you do the parallel parking on Second Avenue, you're really reducing the two lanes going south from the bridge, taking you into Troy down to one lane, aren't you?

The traffic generation, both existing and adding in the proposed uses, it's showing that it operates well.

That was not my question. My question is not does it operate well. If you do the parallel parking with the bike lane on Second Avenue and you come off the bridge and you make a right and you're proceeding down into Troy, your two-lane road that we currently have now becomes one lane, correct?

So I just want to note that there is an existing bump out for the bus. So you do not have a continuous set of two lanes. That quote unquote two lanes, which is not striped. And Chris, correct me if I'm wrong. I don't actually believe it is intended presently as two lanes. Ultimately, someone has to merge into the single lane because of that bus bump out.

Yes. And then you're just avoiding my question.

No, I'm not. Sorry, I don't want you to perceive it as if I'm avoiding your question. I'm just noting that as traffic is crossing 2nd Avenue, there is a choke point because of that bus bump out.

But you go from two lanes down to one. Right. Thank you.

Because where that bus is out, there's a light right there now. There's a traffic light.

Yeah, just after the bus stop, there is a traffic signal. And I mean, the other thing is like those traffic signals at 125th and 124th are not set up for like for two lanes. Like they're a single lane traffic signal in each direction.

Is it? Because the one by the gas station, if I'm going the other way, if I'm going towards Hannaford in the Little League fields, if i pull up and that has a signal to turn left only and then the other side can go straight right i don't know what road that's 100 but that's the way that said i i drive that a lot that's how i go to little league that's how i go to that's how i go to and if you go if you're headed north you can go straight or turn right or turn right six right yeah

HAB-Jacques Juilland- You're headed. HAB-Jacques Juilland- If you're going north. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Yeah, when I go past I go past. HAB-Jacques Juilland- Bridges. Yeah, you can make your right and go over to Fifth Avenue, or you can make a left and go over the bridge.

HAB-Jacques Juilland- That's what HAB-Jacques Juilland- That's what that is. HAB-Jacques Juilland- And they're set up for two lanes and then then you have traffic coming straight or coming off the bridge. So that is really set up for two lanes, I think.

So what I will say is we just received, I actually don't even have a final report yet on our site access and operational analysis traffic study that was performed. So we will further review that internally and come back to you with more input.

Yeah, I think it is. I know you're saying it's not for two lanes, but I think it might be. And if it isn't, people use it for two lanes for sure. But I think it has to be because of the traffic coming off the bridge. I think it has to be.

So I think the last note that I will make is that.

So then you're going to be merging sooner than if coming off the bridge. You have to be. Yeah. So we have to come off the bridge or come straight up.

There's the Walgreens property to our north. So there's the full length of that property.

Plus, is that that big dog at that little lot where that old house used to be? Yeah, I'm not saying it's going to cause back. But you say you have a study that says it's not going to be backup traffic. But I'm just I'm saying it's you're merging much faster. You have to be.

Yeah, I mean, it's going to be a different traffic pattern for sure. It'll take folks time to get used to it. The other thing that I will note, I think, is that the intent of the neighborhood for development intensity zone is to try to create a more pedestrian oriented friendly space. So I think a lot of what we're trying to do with the modifications to the roadway as well as the streetscape improvements is to create that visual kind of traffic calming effect so that people will hopefully reduce their speed in vehicles. I mean, we do have the traffic signals that also would stop them if it was a red light. But I think overall, we're trying to improve the condition while creating like the intended vision of the city for the neighborhood.

I just, I don't know. That's just, I live there. I live, the Berg's my neighborhood, right? Sorry guys. So that's where I live, right? I don't live close to second half. I live, I live a ninth, right? So this part of Troy is, is not a walkable part of Troy. I'm not walking down that area. And even if, I don't even know if I live, just the people that live there, it's not a walkable, it's not a walking neighborhood.

Well, so to that, may I suggest, if that's what you're attempting, you gotta have some anchor commercial space. You gotta have something to go to. It can't just be like, hey, let's open up a coffee shop. It's gotta be like- I would just say that is the intention right yeah want that retail, and they just seem small and with the 21 parking places for the retail I just I think I like the vision I like the concept. I just think there needs to be commercially. For the residents, the 205 residents, as well as the people that you're trying to bring into this community, I think you need to have a really attractive anchor store, whatever that means.

I agree with you, and our real intent is to make this a destination that compels people in the area to walk. I would also note that we have a pathway to the water, right, with a walkway along the water. I don't want to speak ahead of myself, but you have the boat launch to the south and then the site to the north, which is the Walgreens. Right. And so, you know, if the city decides to pursue funding and prioritize those two parts, you have the potential of a connection to the bridge.

You're saying the boat launch that's over by the Pizza Hut or the one across the river?

Behind the Pizza Hut.

That boat launch. So I use that boat launch. I'm probably the one person that uses it. Maybe there's another guy that does too. That is not a boat launch. Not anymore. It was at one time. They don't put the docks in. I've been arguing with DEC about putting those docks in for like five years now. And they need to fix the ramp for it. I mean, it could be a boat launch. I'm just saying you can't call that a boat launch today.

noted. And I would just say, again, with this concept of walkability, right, we now have a riverfront path that will potentially connect to the bridge. And so you may even have a change in the way people perceive getting around this area, right?

And you're going to let that path be open to the public? Correct.

So again, you might have people from across the river walk across, come across our property, walk down, access that retail, right? You may have the opposite where people from Lansingburg are walking through along the river over the bridge to the community across the river. So I'm just saying, you know, we are trying to build a project that encourages walkability and the intent is to shift behavior, right?

I mean, parking is always going to be a problem.

Well, parking's not always going to be a problem there, too.

It's congested. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, Steve. It would be nice if there were some available spaces within the complex, but at the same rate, you've got 205 units and 205 parking spaces. Everybody has a car. There's a potential for 400 cars. There's a parking problem already and it's not even built.

You're not going to control parks on second evidence.

We don't know yet.

And what if there's a funeral at the funeral home across the street?

Yeah, I mean, it's a... and we continue to add buildings and make parking problems.

What? Oh, there is two. You're right. Sorry.

For the sake of progressing our discussion, I think we understand you have significant concerns about parking. We will look into it further. We will try to come back more prepared for the next meeting. Okay.

Let's see what she looks like.

So some of the other site constraints that I just want to point out quickly. So obviously we're along the Hudson River. There is a 50 foot required setback along the river. So that's the blue hatch shown along the shoreline. We also have some pretty interesting utility considerations. So at along the northern property line, that green line that runs parallel with the northern property line, that is actually a private sanitary service that encroaches on this property that serves the house that's tucked in by the bridge.

Which green line are we looking? To the far right.

Yeah, right is north. So that line has to be maintained. So it is that line specifically that's triggering the 10-foot setback from that side property line. We also have a 16-inch ductile iron water main that is basically parallel at the property line along the entire frontage. There is about 300 linear feet of that line that encroaches on our property. So in coordinating with Chris and Department of Public Utilities, 10 foot is the maximum setback allowed by code for the buildings. That is where we currently have it set, the building set. However, there's the potential that they actually want more of a setback to that main because of its size, the pressure, potential future maintenance concerns.

Does that line engage public sewer that goes to a pump station or is that just storm drain lines.

So I was talking about the water main just now. Water main. Yeah. So the green line that's parallel to that is the combined sewer main and it currently runs beneath the public sidewalk. So that is a, it varies from 24 inch to 30 inch clay pipe. And it's relatively shallow at four to five foot depth. So TAB, Clay obviously is a very fragile material has issues with breakage so that line is one of the key considerations for the street tree variants that we are requesting so i'll get to that in more detail as we go.

TAB, Are there plans to replace that with something more.

So we have been had many conversations with Chris and others at the city in regard to the infrastructure. We all recognize its age and vulnerability. And I think our development team, we're all actively working with the city to pursue potential grant opportunities to do infrastructure improvements and replacement.

It's a shame to do a project, put all that money into it, and a year later, and now we've got to dig up the entire line. HAB-Terry Palmos- After all the work that's been done.

HAB-Terry Palmos- minute the sewer line doesn't go into the river.

HAB-Terry Palmos- sort of like repaying. HAB-Terry Palmos- I don't know you're talking.

HAB-Terry Palmos- Unless you want to you know push the state to. HAB-Terry Palmos- increase utility utility funding budget, you know, so we can get ahead of these things.

HAB-Charlotte Pitts, So, at the end of the day, I think we all want that line replaced.

I just want to note the renderings you're about to see are not the best renderings. Our architect's rendering software had a glitch. He was not able to incorporate trees, pedestrians, and other elements. I would also just note that this design is about to speak into the bike. Sorry, did you guys hear all that? No. Okay, let me repeat that. I want to just note that this design is evolving in concert with the planning board. I would just also note that the architect's rendering software had an issue and we were not able to incorporate trees, pedestrians, and other sort of detailed elements. And then I would just finally note that the colors of the building are continuing. We are continuing to consider the correct color scheme. So I just want to note that.

So this is one of the preliminary renderings with all of Andrew's caveats to that. So this is looking from the east side of Second Avenue towards the central and southern buildings proposed on the property. So you'll see that we've got a significant commercial frontage with kind of canopies and a different material for that portion of the building with good window transparency along that length. And then we have architectural bays for like change in color and depth of the facade, vertical elements to kind of break it up to align with some of the older architecture style. And then going, oops, this is the other view, which is basically from roughly like the 124th street intersection, looking Northwest towards again, building two and now building three. Just another view. And this one is at the rear of the property, kind of looking from the southern boat lodge property towards the northeast at the three buildings. So we've got a pedestrian walkway along the river and then connections back going towards Second Avenue.

You wouldn't be able to see that from the bowl launch because there's a lot of buildings, right? Because there's a whole other strip mall there.

Yes. Yeah. And that is not shown because, again, they were having issues. So this is not a completed rendering in any way. But I think, generally, it's to give you general aesthetic of what the buildings will look like.

Go back for just a sec. Is that about? So as far as the distance from the river to the building sidewalk, is that approximately? Sorry, I was just asking if that was the perspective was correct. I mean, you see the little slice of the river, then you see the walkway and then you see the depth.

Yeah, on the southern part of the property at building one, the step back to the river is greater. And then as you go north, there is like kind of a jog in of the shoreline. So that's where it's tighter, where we do have the largest variances being requested.

So I'm just going to request, because I'm always concerned about what it looks like when you're on the river, even though you're telling me, Zach, that there's stuff in front of that at the moment. But, you know, hoping that things continue to change for the better. Can you just make it a little bit prettier on the riverside? Because it, I don't know.

If I come out of the Waterford Bridge in Troy, what will I see on the backside of that building? Music. Is that what you're really asking?

Use your mic.

Yeah, well, let's... I'm over the 125th Street Bridge. I'm leaving Waterford. I'm coming into Troy. What am I going to see?

That.

I mean, you're going to...

I don't think you'll make a funny comment. You're just not close enough to him. You're going to see the, I would think, the third building back.

You're going to see all of those.

Again, I just want to note that, and certainly... I want to note that the landscaping plan is not on this rendering because we were unable to provide it. I can assure you that at our next presentation, we'll have renderings that are incredibly accurate, detailing all of the intended landscaping, which is meant to account for this. There will be trees along that green space there, okay, in front of the water. I also want to note that there's extensive tree growth on both sides, right? And so I'd ask that you... bear with me until I have those renderings for our next presentation. But I could assure you that we have taken that into account and are aware that there is a balance between these buildings, the waterfront, and the perception of them in that context.

Okay. That just looks like a dormitory right now.

We will do better next time.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are here tonight to discuss eight specific area variances which were included in our application materials. So from the staff notes that you probably saw and the agenda, there was an extremely long list of potential variances that could apply to this project. But what I will say is that these eight that we are presenting tonight are the ones that we know for certain are required, and we are actively working and have already eliminated many of the other items that were on that list and are looking to avoid all or most of those as we can. If we determine that any additional ones are required, we will modify for the next application and present that to you next month. So the first variance that we wanted to discuss was maximum building height. So we are proposing to provide a 53 foot. So I will also note the design has changed since we initially submitted the materials to you. So there are several of these variances that have actually been reduced from what we originally submitted. This is one of them. So originally, our application had a 58-foot building height. We now have roughly a 53-foot building height, and that is just for the central building two, which is four stories. And in the zoning code, a 50-foot maximum is required. So it's about a three-foot variance is what is being requested. HAB-Masyn Moyer- And so that additional height is not intended to increase the development intensity or density in any way. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Rather it's a direct consequence of the floodplain requirements that require that the residential occupancy is be elevated two feet above the design flood elevation so that's what is really driving the height of the building.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Or you're changing you said you were putting you're changing the height of the grade, you said you were going to. fill it in to get more height.

So the grade at the exterior, the finished grade at the exterior of the building is not changing. It's a building that will be elevated.

Okay. So what's going to be underneath the building?

A foundation wall. It's like you're having a berm built. You're putting it on a berm. A structural concrete. So

If we were not in the floodplain, the height would be below the 50 feet. So the requested relief, as I said, is limited to the central building too. And to try to reduce the visual impact of that building, we have set it back to more than 100 feet from the mean high watermark of the river where the 50 foot setback is required. So we're providing additional separation from the river and then going just three feet taller. And then the other thing that I will note is that there is grade change obviously across the property. So the low point is at the second avenue frontage where we're about 28 feet in elevation. The river obviously drops down lower, but the majority of the site currently slopes up to a high point at about 33, 34. So our proposed grades are gonna be very close to that with the exception of the residential first floor, which will be elevated. So at the rear of those buildings on the riverside, the height will be less than 50 feet compared to that finished grade at those corners. It's also important to note that the zoning ordinance already contemplates the ability to have additional height in this area. There is a 10-foot height bonus that is allowed when you provide a public multi-use path. So we are... actively working to try to incorporate and get funding to build that path. But just for the sake of timing and not having negative implications to our potential funding through HCR, we are instead pursuing this height variance.

So where's the path going to go? So that path, there's a small path there by the boat launch. I use those quotes there intentionally just in case you couldn't see for the record, but it just kind of ends, right? And then you're going to extend that path and then you don't own the property next to you, but there's no path back there. And then it cuts over to the river cuts over to the bridge. So are you going all the way to the back line of the property past that property, the vacant property now to the right of you, if I'm looking at the river, like, where's your, where's your path going to end?

I mean, so.

So, uh, great question. Um, So we are working with the city.

Can't hear you.

Sorry, thank you. We are working with the city to secure funding for those elements. So one element is securing a easement with the owner of the Walgreens site, right? to the north to connect to the bridge, right? And securing funding so that the city can complete that portion of the path to the bridge, okay? The second element is the boat launch, right? And securing funding so the path can terminate at the boat launch. And so we are ever hopeful that in conjunction with our project, the city will be successful in securing that funding. I would also just note we are working with the city to determine the best way of providing either an easement or seeding the land along the river to the city. We are open to both. It's not yet determined which way is the best way to do that, but we want to do that. Okay.

So I think generally speaking with the additional setback that we're providing from the river and the fact that the height variance is only necessary at the second avenue frontage and is only three feet. I think that's generally, we think that it's still consistent with the intent of the zoning.

You guys don't own the boat launch. That boat launch, that property is owned, the boat launch is owned by, I think.

The city.

The city. But then that parking lot where the boat launch is, but then that building is owned by somebody else. That's not you guys at all, right?

So our property abuts the boat launch property at the rear.

Rear.

Because at the, sorry.

They own the former Burger King site too. So that's in between.

So Burger King abuts the boat launch property. Oh, it does. At the river edge.

Okay.

So the second variance is to provide a 17 foot eight inch ground floor commercial story height where a 14 foot maximum is required by the code. This again is a direct impact of the need to elevate that first level residential for the flood design and then matching the ceiling height of the first level residential with the commercial for construction efficiency. So it just makes that commercial ground floor taller. You got to keep adding it. Yeah. I think that's really all to say about that one. The next variance is to provide a 46.1% building frontage where 80% minimum is required. So I think... This site has a unique configuration in that it has the existing signalized intersections at 124th and 125th that really for traffic and access operational efficiency need to be maintained. In addition, where the existing Christchopper building lands, it's basically between 124th and 125th. So there are existing view corridors right now from those roadways down to the river. So as we have it designed with those accesses into our parking lots, it's maintaining the view corridors back to the river which the code does require i think at least a 30 foot minimum space between the buildings uh to to establish view corridors so we're doing that and then um So I would say, like, although the frontage percentage is reduced, the buildings do continue to establish a strong street presence through active ground floor commercial spaces, the architecture, as well as streetscape improvements, and as well as significant landscaping at the back edge of the sidewalks and screening of those parking areas.

So that's looking from the street towards the river. That's the front of the building, right? Yes. And they're really that far apart? It looks really far, doesn't it?

Well, that rendering is wrong.

It's got to be, right?

Yeah. No, it is to scale. It is to scale? Yeah.

Oh, so they're really close because you're at the parking lots in between them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry.

You've got great space in between.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK.

The main entrance, what one would think of the main entrance. Is that on the east side of the building facing Second Avenue or is it on the north or south side?

So all of the commercial components will have access from Second Avenue frontage. Every commercial space will have frontage access. The residential, because of the elevation change, basically those lobbies are set behind the commercial. And so they'll have ground level access up, but they're on the side.

They're on the north or south side. And that's the one with the elevator that takes them up.

Yeah. So the residential will have access directly from their parking lots. So the next variance is to provide 10 foot side building setbacks where five foot maximum is required. So as I previously mentioned, we have that existing sanitary service at the northern edge, which is driving that 10 foot separation. And then we were able to improve and reduce the variance request at the southern edge and we matched that 10 foot offset. Generally, because there's a transformer, there's a sidewalk on the adjacent strip mall property, trying to maintain that, not have construction impacts to them and ease constructability of a three-story building. But I think, you know, if you look at this when compared to the existing property, as well as pretty much every property in that neighborhood that is in the neighborhood four intensity zone area, there are basically no properties that have, that meet that five foot maximum setback currently. So like we are, you know, trying to meet the intent of the code, putting those buildings closer to the property lines.

It's like across all the layers.

but we're not quite able to hit the five feet. The next request is to provide a zero foot step back in the fourth story of building two, the central building. And in this zone, when adjacent to the river, there is a 10 foot step back in that fourth story that is required. So we are not proposing to provide that. So although we don't have the step back, the entire building is set back at 100 feet instead of the 50 foot required. But I think generally, you know, introducing that required step back would reduce the housing yield, it would complicate the structural system, reduce the energy efficiency at that level, and increase construction costs without providing a significant public benefit. So I think we're trying to compromise by providing that additional step back. from the river or step back from the river. The next is to provide a 10-foot front parking setback at the street frontage where a 20-foot parking setback is required. So while we are proposing to reduce the setback, the resulting streetscape represents a significant improvement over the existing condition. The project will introduce the parallel parking, as we've discussed. There will be... Sorry about that. Hurry up, get through the car. But there will be significant landscape screening. So the code has very specific requirements for landscape screening. We're going above and beyond that to really screen that parking from the frontage within that 10-foot setback that we're providing. In addition, we... you know, with all of the modifications of the development, we are reducing the impervious surface coverage by greater than 25%. And we're also redirecting 100% of the site stormwater out of the combined sewer. So currently right now, two-thirds of the site from basically the price chopper forward, all of that impervious drains to the road, to the catch basins that tie directly to the combined sewer. What we are proposing is to actually install an on-site separate storm sewer with catch basins that'll collect all of that flow, send it to the west side of the property toward the river, and then south... And then south where there is an existing separate storm sewer on the boat launch property where we can tie into and then it will be a direct discharge to the river. So that'll provide a significant benefit to that combined sewer network.

But the discharge to the river is storm drain only.

So it's the combined sewer overflow. So it only overflows when the combined sewer exceeds its capacity, but there are no direct, that pipe does not have any direct sanitary connections to it. So under a normal scenario, it's just conveying stormwater. And in like reviewing the long-term control plan, basically that outfall as of 2018, show it about 13 overflows per year. So it's actually pretty limited compared to a lot of the overflows in the city. So the next one is about the parking areas relative to the Hudson River, as well as the public pathway easement. So the code does not allow parking to be adjacent to the river or the pathway easement. However, adjacent is not defined. So it's difficult to interpret what that setback really should be. But I think generally the intent which goes against the exact plan that was shown in the comprehensive plan. We do not want the parking to dominate the river view, right? So we don't want all the buildings in the front and then all the parking at the river. So I think our design really worked to provide a compromise and tuck those parking lots in between the buildings and still provide significant green space and activated pedestrian space along the river. So we are... providing a 95 foot parking step back, a 95 foot parking step back from the river in addition to that landscaping buffer. And we have, I think it ends up being at the closest point, it's 21 foot step back to the easement that would be for that future pathway. And that's just at the Northern end where again, like that shoreline kind of plots in a little bit. So just another thing to know is like compared to the existing condition of the property, the redevelopment will substantially reduce the pavement adjacent to the river where we currently have the access drive 25 feet off basically at the top of bank of the river right now.

Are you going to provide bike parking?

Yes.

Okay. By the river or back out? There's going to be public access.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so there are, in accordance with the code, we've got short-term and long-term bicycle storage, but there's bike rack space throughout the site, near the public path, near the playground.

But the public can use it?

Yes.

Okay.

Yep. So the final variance is to eliminate street trees where one street tree is required per 35 linear foot of frontage. So as we discussed, the main driver for this is the fact that we are pushing the curb two and a half feet closer to our property line. So we're pushing that maintenance strip, which would typically contain the street trees closer to the property, closer to that combined sewer that is shallow and has potential concerns. We do not recommend planting trees in that close of proximity to that line. However, we are showing and providing significant landscape screening directly behind the public sidewalk to try to still accomplish that green space along that frontage.

So you're going to put trees, so it's going to be street, parallel parking right now, sidewalk, then trees, then parking, then buildings.

Yes.

Okay.

So I think taken together, these variance requests are not seeking to increase the density of the development beyond what was contemplated with the waterfront mixed use district. Rather, they represent targeted relief necessary to address the unique physical characteristics of the site, including the floodplain, existing infrastructure, providing and providing emphasizing waterfront access, as well as preserving public view corridors to the river. So we believe that the proposal satisfies the statutory balancing test and results in a development that is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and substantially improves both the site and the surrounding neighborhood. So I guess in terms of the process and the timeline, we wanted to just present this to you. So we did present to the planning board at the June 16th meeting. They declared themselves as lead agency. This is a type one action. So it requires the coordinated review, which the planning staff initiated. Notices were sent. And then we're presenting and introducing the project to you tonight. We are going back to the planning board on July 21st for public hearing, potentially targeting a secret negative declaration at that meeting, which would mean that we could then come back to you guys in August to, again, discuss the variances and potentially have a vote, and then go back to the planning board in August again.

You're going to break ground goal of September.

That's good.

Yes, that's when you want to write 20 to 2027. That's what you're saying. I'm just confirming.

Go ahead. Yes, of 2027.

OK. First of all, it's a great presentation, I think, to get us acquainted with the project. I have a question on what is workforce?

Housing. Yes.

Pricing, housing, and all that kind of good stuff. Presently, the funding... Programs available, sorry. Presently the funding programs available from the state target area median comes between 30 and 80%. This is always an evolving dialogue with the state agency, HCR. We believe and hope to also get additional bandwidths of 90 and 100% AMI. So the average generally in a project is 60% AMI, okay?

Okay, so what's adequate to for this project in dollars?

Yeah.

I have a question. When you talk about AMI 30 to 80 and 90 to 100, that's been calculated differently in this area. Is it AMI for Troy? Is it AMI for Lansingburg? Or is it the Tri-City area? Because that's something that's happened around the area generally.

Understood. It is the AMI for Troy, which is It is the AMI for the Troy, Albany, Schenectady statistical area.

The Tri-City area.

You're calculating the AMI for the Tri-City area.

Correct. And that is what we are required to use by the federal government as well as the state.

And right now the state is saying 30 to 80% of the Tri-City area.

So the units would be for residents who make between 30% and 80% of AMI. We are additionally seeking to have Bandwidths of 90 and potentially 100% AMI should the state agree that that is needed. But that is our intent. We have had, yes.

So put that in layman's terms. I want dollars and cents. I want to know what these people are making a year.

Okay, can I?

Convert the terminology of AMI to dollars. So when you say to us, the state wants to see or would approve 30 to 80% of a tri-city AMI. What does that mean in terms of a dollar bracket range?

Understood. I'm going to pull that info up because I don't have it at the top, on the top of my head, but just give me once we had it. So I'm going to, I'm going to review that with you.

There's a reason I'm pressing that and I'll explain the reason. Understood.

Understood. Okay. So the rents that I'm going to give you right now are based on 2026 HUD data. So I'll just note that these could change in the future as AMI is recalculated going forward. They will be set the year that we complete. So an 80% AMI would be for residents meeting 80% AMI. A one bedroom would be 1850. A two bedroom would be 20.

Slow this part down. One bedroom, 1850 a month. Go ahead.

Two bedroom, 2220. And a three bedroom would be 2560.

Three bedroom is 2560. So based upon an assumption that of at least 80% AMI, you're looking at a rent of 1800 to 2860, right?

Correct.

I'm on a roll. Let me finish. Let's go to the low end. of the 30 to 80% range. Do you anticipate how much of that 30 to 40 to 50% range would be allocated to units for rent? Or are they ruled out because of the low end of the spectrum?

So the average across the entire project has to be 60% AMI. So you have some units that are above 60, the 80% bracket. You have some units that are below. The majority of these units will be 50 to 60% AMI. And I can share those rents with you now if you'd like.

That would be fun. That's a good question.

Okay. So units at 60% AMI, a one bedroom as of today would be 1380. A two bedroom would be 1660 and a three bedroom would be 1920. At 50% AMI, a one bedroom would be 1150. A two bedroom would be 1380 and a three bedroom would be 1600.

who's going to make the ultimate decision of what percentage allocation of AMI is gonna go into this project?

That in part is based on a market study, right? So we assess where the need is and then we present that to HCR and HCR is the state agency that coordinates funding for these projects.

So let's talk, I'm sorry, go ahead, I'll wait.

So could I assume that if I was on the, if I'm at 60%, I'm at 1320 for a wet bedroom, that half of that would be if I was at 30% of AMI?

No.

No, 1150, you said was the one bedroom.

So 30% AMI for a one bedroom would be 690.

Oh, yeah.

Okay. 690. Okay. Two bedroom would be 830 and a three would be 960.

960 for a three? Correct.

Okay. What was the two units?

830. I don't know.

Where did the state come from?

That's like really low income.

So the rest of the country... AMI for workforce is 80% to 130%. I don't know where the state numbers are coming up from.

I did my homework on workforce stuff, and this is starting to sound like low-income housing.

Again, we are targeting, in addition to these bands, 90% and 100% of AMI. I would say 80% of AMI is market for this area.

80% of AMI, but you knew.

You can't say, take 200 units. as a nice round number, what percentage of the 200 units are going to fall in the 80% plus versus what number in the 60% plus versus what number in the 30%.

So I would say roughly, and again, this is determined by a market study, right? Which we have not yet completed in terms of where the demand is. So again, we have to balance across 60%. That being said, anywhere from, 110 to 130 units would likely be in that 50 to 60% range. And then some balance would be at 70 and 80 and 30.

So what was the number at 50% did you say?

So the vast majority of units would be 50 and 60% AMI. Okay. Okay. then there would be small allocations to 30, 70, and 80 to arrive at an average of 60% across all the years.

So there are allocations.

We are allocating based on our market study and what is needed in the area. but ultimately arriving at an average across all the units of 60%. So you're going to have some units below 60, some units above, some units at. With the vast majority of units below 60 at 50%.

And all the single bedrooms are the same, correct? So if Zach is paying... 860 and I'm paying 1350, we still have the same unit.

Correct. That is required.

I have a problem with that.

What is the AMI?

I just asked. I looked it up. AI gave you an answer. What did AI give you?

160. 160. 160. 160. 116,000. 116,000. Okay. That's all I wanted to know.

Generally, the way that these rents are calculated is that it is understood that if you pay more than 30% of your income to rent or housing costs, you are rent or housing burdened, okay? And so you work back from the income level and you take 30% of that. This is rough. It gets more complicated, but this is very rough just to keep it simple. So if you're making $100,000 a year 30% of that is $30,000. 30,000 divided by 12 would be the limit. Anything more than that, you would be rent or housing burdened if you had a mortgage, et cetera.

Can I ask some questions about the funding on this project?

Absolutely.

Is it private capital or is it public tax dollars? Where does the funding come from that's going to drive this bus?

It's a combination of many factors. So you have private capital, right? So the developers, myself, Roggeville, AHC, are putting real dollars at risk to entitle this project. And then through the course of development, you have the state issuing tax-exempt bonds which are used to fund the project in addition to what are called tax credits. So the federal government issues tax credits, which are then sold to generally a financial institution who has a vested interest in these projects because of CRA requirements. So the Community Reinvestment Act requires banks to either provide banking or invest in areas that need housing.

Is the private capital being funded privately through limited partnerships and pass through tax credits and depreciation? to well-heeled investors?

No, it is our own money.

Okay. If you start this project, you mentioned, I think, four or five times Troy financing for approval for financing from Troy. Is Troy tax dollars collected from the public being put into the cash flow pipeline to promote this project?

I don't believe I ever said that, and I want to say definitively that is not the case.

Thank you. If you start construction on the project, has anybody asked for a performance bond contract? Does that come up at planning?

Generally, That has not, generally that does not occur unless you're working, you're completing work on publicly owned land or infrastructure, right? So sometimes if you, as the developer, are doing street work, right, the city might require a performance bond.

So if it's a city project, Steve, we require performance bonds, for example, on the new firehouse on 117th Street, okay? But this is not the same thing, right?

Who owns that property at this point in time?

That is owned by Clark Trading Co. By who? Clark Trading Co.

Okay. Okay.

He is doing work on city property, though, isn't that? The river frontage is city property.

The right-of-way work permit would require either surety bond or something like that. He's doing some work on city property.

Right, but that's not a lot. It's not major construction.

Can I ask another question, Steve, or you got more?

No, I got more, but I'll wait.

Okay, I got another simple question. I ask a lot of simple ones. No worries. We leave the complicated ones to Steve. How many one bedrooms, how many twos, and how many threes?

We've not yet determined the unit mix, but I'll be happy to share that info next time.

I also have a concern here that I'm just going to say. So this is right in the smack of the North Atlantic Flyway. and you are starting construction in the middle of migratory bird season. So, and I know that doesn't sound, I wouldn't laugh at it. And like that whole area is that the, a mile up the river is where the geese roost to like, and that's where they roost when they're coming. So I'm impressed that you, so I'm just, I say, so he's speaking as a hunter. So I, and I tell you, I hunt a mile from this land, but I duck hunt on the file for this land. And I'll be honest, you're starting opening day of goose season in the prime goose season in this area.

There's no hunting permitted in that area.

There is because we can have this offline. That's a federally regulated waterway. And if you're shooting, as long as you're not shooting towards a structure, you can shoot over any federally regulated waterway. Yeah, but I don't believe you can hunt in the city of Troy. But that's not the city of Troy. It's federally regulated and a mile up from there.

But we can have that offline, Steve. Your concern is noted. This is a projected schedule, and that concern is noted.

I got another question for you. Yes. Just to sort of throw it all out there.

Yes, understood. Absolutely.

The last bullet point on the agenda, relief is requested from the requirement that all display windows be constructed with clear, colorless, glass. Visibility is important for public safety.

I don't understand what I just heard.

I think that was a misinterpretation of the very preliminary original architecture that was submitted. The glass will meet the code.

Yeah, because of a Troy police car or a fire department truck or an ambulance pulls up, I think transparent visibility is important for public safety.

Yeah, we will meet the transparency requirement.

And I would say we're not doing any of it based upon that.

We will meet that requirement. Okay.

Yeah, I think what she mentioned on the record is what they are sticking the variances on. What is left out on the agenda, they would address all those requirements. In other words, they will be meeting those requirements, so not needing variances.

All right.

Yeah.

The third point from the bottom, relief of six feet requested to allow a two-way driveway of 26 feet where a maximum of 20 is permitted.

20 foot driveways are proposed in the current design that was presented to you.

Troy Fire Department passed on that.

We have not seen their official review yet, but their fire truck turning movements work in that whole property.

That was my question.

I can't remember if that page was submitted for the ZBA, but absolutely, we have a fire truck turning movement plan as part of the planning board submission.

Okay, thank you.

Is there any questions out in the public?

It's like you're a regular here.

I care.

My name is Barb Nelson. I'm an architect and I live at 37 Bell Avenue. I'm also the director at TAP Incorporated. One of my colleagues at TAP has submitted you a letter.

I just want to make sure that you have it in the record from Lisa Rodriguez.

But I will also make a few comments. One, this is an amazing site, an amazing opportunity for really a creative design of housing and traffic management. It's got gorgeous views. It has the potential to stimulate economy. And I ask that you do not compare this proposal to what we have now. What we have now is unfortunate, unlucky. It was the 80s, 70s, whenever it was built, it's bad. What is built on this property should be the best, should really be an excellent gateway into Lansingburg and not just better than some vacant grocery store, okay? Not just, this is, we should not compare or hold our, we should hold our bar higher, way higher than this.

The number two.

So many of these variances are required because they're compressing the footprint as tight as possible. That's what we do. I'm an architect. You compress it and you go up and that saves money. All right. The more you spread it out, the more foundation, the more roof. So I think what I see objectionable here is the density and the disregard for the street frontage requirements. You could certainly spread those buildings out. They could look like smaller buildings, but again, appearance and aesthetics and traffic management is not a zoning board purview. I appreciate your interest in that. But those are things handled by the planning board.

The board is entitled to understand the project in its entirety. We also know the limits of our purview and jurisdiction.

Absolutely. I agree. And so I'll mention that appearance-wise, I think a creative architect can meet the design challenges. These setbacks, the zoning ordinance has set out design challenges. Yep, there's plenty and they can be met without 14 variances, 13 variances. Some of these variances are very well explained. And yeah, we don't want to build on public utilities, we want to honor you sheds and things like that. But a number of them. are very much self-created. That, I think, is the litmus test of when a variance should be allowed, when it should not, if it was not self-created. OK, oh, well, the floodplain requires we build up here. That's not self-created. Well, you don't have to go three stories high. You've self-created that need for that height variance. So there are a number of challenges here that could go back to the drawing board and result in a much more creative approach, appearance that doesn't look like a big factory for people, doesn't look like... In fact, even if it was trying aesthetically to be factories, because we've had plenty of factories on the Hudson, I might be okay with that, but no, these are... They just look like warehouses. So I'll leave it at that. I'll take it up with the planning board, the aesthetics. The applicant mentions public infrastructure that they're going to help find grant money to achieve. That's great. That's wonderful. I would like to note that a developer can very legally be required to contribute to public infrastructure improvements. I worked at RPI for 24 years. RPI The city never missed an opportunity to say to RPI, oh, replace that sidewalk, replace the length of 15th Street, replace that sewer line all the way down College F. So it is entirely within the city's purview to require a developer to assist with public infrastructure that they are impacting. So think about that. Let's see, one, two, three, four, five. Again, a number of these are self-created, and I hope you'll look at that very, very carefully. Also, it's a real slippery slope to promise or to say we really want a daycare center and we really want a restaurant and we really want community-friendly. No one can guarantee what will end up there. What will end up there is what the market drives and what the... yeah, what the commercial retail shopkeeper is looking for. I do understand that you know, 21 parking spaces, okay, that's not, maybe that doesn't seem like a lot, but it's about the same as any store downtown. No store downtown can claim a whole, you know, any block of stores has a block of parking. But you do have 205 people, 205 units full of people who want to get coffee or want to go to a gym. So don't disregard that there's a whole walkable population being inserted here. And having said that, TAP Inc, we're nonprofit architectures, architects and community planners. We are advocates for affordable housing. We own a 20 unit affordable housing facility. The density of 205 families here I don't think, and I'll fight for affordable housing all night, all day, all my life. But I don't think we do people any favors by grouping people in this tight density, 200 families. This site could offer some market rate housing over here and some affordable housing over there. But the straightest, fastest path to funding is one source. OK. low income housing tax credits. Let's get to 200. Let's get to 300. Let's not stop at 100. Is the developer doing what's right for the people being housed? Or is the developer doing what they can to maximize profit? I understand that. We all need to make money. But I do question the density of this many low and moderate income families. in one space, living on 100-foot-long double-loaded corridors. And our comprehensive plan shows a much broader, very public approach, a park in the middle of this site. There's so much potential for that as opposed to a meandering through the parking lot. Again, it's preliminary. A lot of these variances are pretty well explained and probably necessary, but a good number of them, I think, are self-created. And we invested, I think, almost a million dollars in our comprehensive plan and our zoning ordinance to just... to not follow it. Let's see what we would actually get if we actually followed it. So I encourage the architects to get back to the table. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks, Barb. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Rani Shamam. I have a house a block south on First Avenue from the south end of the project. And I want to just remind you all of something that you already know. This area is one of the most historic, beautiful spots, not only in Troy, but probably in the state of New York. We have so much to be grateful for and thankful for for this location. So the people of Lansingburg deserve the respect and the consideration when we open up that waterfront for the neighbors and consider, as Barb said, the reduction in density. We've heard from nearby buildings that have been recently developed the problems that have happened inadvertently that impact the entire Lansingburg community. police coming, fire engines coming, a lot of bad behavior that was not supposed to happen. The neighbors were very vocal, some in a not too pleasant way about what they thought was coming and it actually happened. So I ask you to listen to the neighbors when we have the public hearings. Please be aware of the history and where we are with that. And I would greatly appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else? Anybody online? Angie? No. There's no other questions.

I don't know if the developer wants to respond.

Would you like to respond or any of those comments?

Not at this moment. I thank you guys for your time and your patience in the beginning as we got through those technical difficulties. And we're excited to come back and present additional information as you guys requested.

We appreciate you doing this. So it's good for us too.

Thank you. Thank you.

I have a motion for adjournment.

I will make that motion to adjourn.

I'll second. I'm seconding it.

I vote to approve.

Thank you, everybody.

Pretending like I'm going to go home and watch soccer like my three kids are going to attack me. I saw this girl sitting in the front row. I was like, what?