Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors raise saturation, buffer and services concerns at RISE 71‑unit Finley St. introduction
Summary
RISE presented a 71-unit affordable/workforce housing project on Finley Street; residents pressed the board about perceived overconcentration of social services, tree-loss and winter screening. RISE clarified units are income-targeted housing, not a shelter, and the board requested technical responses and a county referral before action.
Lansing Engineering and project partners introduced a proposed 71‑unit, three‑story residential project on Finley Street. The scheme includes a large L‑shaped main building, a front amenity/office building, a rear parking area and two subsurface stormwater management systems. The Design Review Board had already issued a positive recommendation for the site’s mass-and-scale and architectural approach; the planning staff is conducting third‑party engineering review.
Public comment was significant: multiple neighbors argued the neighborhood already hosts a concentration of supportive services, a Code Blue shelter, RISE facilities and other service providers, and they urged the board to consider potential cumulative impacts, especially on public safety, trash and street activity. Several residents asked for preservation of the existing treed buffer and for evergreen plantings to ensure wintertime screening. RISE’s executive director clarified that the project is affordable and workforce housing, not a shelter, and said the development will include income-targeted units (approximately 50–60% AMI for half the units, with other supportive funding covering lower-income units); the organization said it aims to reduce reliance on emergency shelter by increasing permanent housing supply.
The board did not vote. Staff noted the application will be referred to Saratoga County (County review anticipated in August) and that the city requires additional materials (lighting/photometrics, final water/sewer and stormwater calculations, landscape details for winter screening, a construction phasing plan, and clearer plans for access and emergency vehicle turning). Members discussed a site visit and asked the applicant to provide examples of how other RISE properties have been managed and operated, to help the board weigh operational vs. design concerns.
What’s next: applicant to supply supplemental engineering and landscape plans; county referral is pending in August; board members requested a site visit and written examples/documentation from RISE about operations at comparable projects.
