Loading...
2007-03-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 50-2001 Jean Hoffman 1. MODIFICATION #2 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.1 Site Plan No. 40-2006 MT Associates, Inc. 13. Tax Map No. 288.-1-59 Subdivision No. 3-2007 1093 Group, LLC 33. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 1-2007 1093 Group, LLC 34. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 Site Plan No. 5-2006 Stewarts Shops 46. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Subdivision No. 7-2007 Jeffrey Threw 50. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 137-2-9.8 Site Plan No. 7-2007 Jolley Assoc. c/o Sean Crumb 54. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-98 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 20, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS FORD THOMAS SEGULJIC STEPHEN TRAVER TANYA BRUNO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-BLANCHE ALTER LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY th MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from January 16 rd and January 23 of 2007. Would anyone like to make a recommendation? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 16, 2007 January 23, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 16 & 23, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Stephen, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is we’re going to go into Executive Session to discuss cases of pending litigation before the Planning Board, and we’re going to unfortunately have to ask the public to leave the room. Blanche, you can certainly stay as Staff. MS. ALTER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make that motion? MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS CASES OF PENDING LITIGATION BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Do we need to be more specific than what I just mentioned? MR. FULLER-If you want, you can say Golden Corral case as one and the Hoffman case the other. MR. HUNSINGER-Those are the two cases that we’ll be talking about. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-We will come and let the public know when we’re finished. I appreciate it. MS. HEMINGWAY-Do you want the tape off? MR. HUNSINGER-I think it should be, yes. MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-I want to thank everyone for their patience. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 MODIFICATION #2 SEQR TYPE JEAN HOFFMAN AGENT(S) WILLIAM KENIRY, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 93 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 978 SQ. FT. DOCK AND BOATHOUSE WITH A 704 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 46-05, AV 90-04, AV 91-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 7.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.1 SECTION 179- 5-050 BILL KENIRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEAN HOFFMAN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. KENIRY-Good evening. I’m Bill Keniry, Tabner, Ryan, and Keniry, attorneys on behalf of Mrs. Hoffman, who’s here with me tonight. I’ve been the attorney responsible for the project since I believe 2001, when we successfully obtained all of the original underlying approvals that pertain to this application. I don’t know exactly how you want to proceed. I don’t have an elaborate presentation. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Probably the most effective way to proceed is for you to tell us why you’re here. There’s only two members on this Board that were on the Board the last time that you were before the Planning Board. So, you know, it would be useful for you to summarize where we are and how we got here. MR. KENIRY-Sure. I can do that. There is a fairly involved history in terms of the chronology of the application, but to some extent, Mr. Chairman, to cut to the chase, how we come to you all tonight and respectfully we ask for you to consider a modification of our existing site plan is as a result of an approval by your Zoning Board in December. Now the approval that we obtained in December from your Zoning Board gives us certain relief, specifically with respect to the height of the structure, and also with respect specifically to the square footage. I was asked to provide you, and I hope that you all did receive it, a copy of the decision of the Zoning Board, and I believe we may have given you some of the minutes, or they may have been provided by another source. In short, it’s our obligation to come to you to ask to modify our site plan, as a result of the grant of the relief by the Zoning Board of Appeals. So to some extent what we’re asking you to do is consider the relief that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and then incorporate that into our modified site plan that we have proposed for you to consider this evening. We did provide you with two drawing, attached to the application. One is, to some extent, a freer hand if you will rendering of what the structure looks like, and also a drawing that was prepared by a Mr. Hartnet, who’s the land surveyor, and that also provides certain measurements. The specific issue is that after we had obtained our original underlying approvals, which we were very satisfied with and very content with at the time, frankly we were excited about the project, and we had obtained every approval from this Board and from the Zoning Board that we desired. Mrs. Hoffman was very satisfied with the project as it was drawn and as it was approved at that time. The Zoning Board took testimony from a contractor who testified that he unilaterally built something that was different than that which was approved. Unfortunately that circumstance gave rise to Mrs. Hoffman coming back to the Town and filing an 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) application for a variance and also for an amended site plan at that time, asking for relief that was consistent with what the contractor built. I think it’s important to point out, and the proof before the Boards here has been uncontroverted, that the contractor acted on his own. He acted unilaterally and he acted independently. To some extent the Zoning Board of Appeals was outraged with him. They made him swear under oath to tell the truth. They directed that we produce him so that they could discuss with him what he did and how he did it. In the end, I think to some extent the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals concluded that the circumstance cried for some attempt to try to remedy this, and we spent a lot of time to try to produce a result that was acceptable to both the applicant and the Town, and that’s what gave rise to the December variance and our application for this modified site plan. I hope that wasn’t too long-winded, but that’s a fair recitation of the history in sort of an abbreviated way of what we’ve been through to get here tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. KENIRY-No. The only thing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board, is respectfully we ask that you consider the materials that we submitted for you. We’re certainly prepared to answer any questions that you may have. We hope that you’ll act favorably upon it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, I think the fact that we’re here shows that we’re considering what you submitted. I will open this up for questions and/or comments from members of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-A question regarding your submission, in particular, this page. You have dimensions of 36 feet by 17 and a half feet. Where exactly are those dimensions? MR. KENIRY-The dimensions are actually measured from the inside of the railings, and admittedly I’m not an engineer and I’m not licensed, but the origin of those measurements were as a result of me taking a tape to try to provide both you and the Zoning Board with an indication of those dimensions. On the other hand, the dimension that is typed and printed, the 704 square feet, you’ll notice that that’s actually typed and not handwritten, are the dimensions that were, or is the calculation, if you will, that was determined by the engineer who prepared the drawing. The reason, or I should say the origin of the 704 square feet, is a determination of what the square footage of the surface area would be if we remove the lakeside railings and bring them two sections in towards shore, and if you look at the drawing, you’ll note that there’s, it’s, what, generally the northwesterly side. There’s a line that’s drawn across, and it’s got an arrow for the dimension. That’s the line where the railing would be, if you find that satisfactory. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess because I mean, when I do the calculation it’s 630 square feet, and you have 704 square feet there. MR. KENIRY-Right. If, you know, we tried to do the best that we could. If you look at the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, they specifically contemplate, there were a number of things that were contemplated, but there could be arguments about where you take measurements from and what the measurements may be. We’ve always accepted the measurements that have been made by Craig Brown and other members of the Staff, so that we didn’t, excuse me, we tried to avoid, and we never did end up in any type of dispute about who’s measurements were more accurate or who’s measurements we were using, and if you look at the resolution of the Zoning Board of December 20, 2006, they actually state will shrink this item four lines down, on Page Two of Two, and it says that that will shrink the size of the deck from 978 square feet to approximately 704 square feet, and I think if there’s any difference in terms of those measurements, the measurement may well be because my measurements of 17 feet 6 inches and 36 feet are from the insides of the round railings that are on the top of the deck. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, one of the things I’m uncomfortable with is we don’t have dimensions of this entire structure. When I look at the history of the approvals and resolutions, the boathouse was approved for 1,170 square feet, and if I look at the drawing that was supplied with the measurement of 630 square feet, that rendering itself shows the structure to be well over 2,000 square feet, exceeding what was approved, and we don’t have any drawings telling how big the structure is. That’s one of the things I’d be looking for, and actually I’d like to have them done by a PE, since it appears that people are having trouble measuring the boathouse, and have it stamped. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-The deed itself, that’s on record, as I understand it at Town Hall. It ties back to a subdivision, and I’d like to get a copy of that subdivision to see exactly if there were any restrictions put on that subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have questions or comments? MR. TRAVER-Yes, I had a question also, I see in the earlier review by the Planning Board there was also a condition that the land bridge be removed. Has that been done? MR. KENIRY-No, the first approval contains a land bridge, and after the Planning Board meeting where the result was that the land bridge be removed, I had a specific conversation with your Counsel, or then Counsel, I should say, and it was agreed and determined then and also in court that the structure not be touched and not be altered or modified. So nothing has been done. There has been no alteration whatsoever, to anything on the site. MR. TRAVER-Pending coming before this body again. MR. KENIRY-Correct, and I don’t know how far you. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, you know, the Planning Board approval, the most recent Planning Board approval, was very specific, that the land bridge and the railings be removed. So now the applicant, you’re saying to us that you did not do that because our Counsel told you not to? MR. KENIRY-Yes, that is absolutely 100% correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that correct? MR. FULLER-Yes. It’s because of the re-hearings going back and forth, I won’t say the stipulation on the record, but there is some indication in my file. MR. HUNSINGER-Was that before they filed suit before the Town or after? MR. FULLER-After. MR. HUNSINGER-And what was the timeframe? MR. KENIRY-I can tell you it was virtually immediately. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I know, you know, one of the concerns, the last time you were before this Board, was that a significant period of time went by, that the project was out of compliance with the approval from this Board, and that was one of the concerns of the Board at the time, that there was really no effort made to try to bring the project into conformance with the approved site plan. MR. KENIRY-Unfortunately that’s not accurate. I had a personal meeting here where I brought Mrs. Hoffman to the meeting with your Counsel and with your Staff, and a proposal was drawn at that meeting, and we were told to present that proposal, and that that was to resolve everything. Unfortunately we came to that meeting, not with this Board, but first with the Zoning Board of Appeals and no one came to the meeting. The Counsel didn’t show up, nor did the Staff member. We presented the proposal, and in all frankness and in all candor we left shocked, because we did exactly what the Town had asked us to do. What we did is what I’ve given you tonight in the drawing. We moved the railing back because that’s what they asked us to do, and we didn’t get the positive result at that meeting, and that’s what put all of this in motion, and at the time, I had specific and direct communications with, not you, Mr. Chairman, but the then Chairman, and I also think they’re documented as well, where it became apparent that there was no reason for us to come back to the Planning Board. So actually our present circumstance of getting here is not even this additional or supplemental submission that I’ve given you, but we had a prior application that’s just simply been held on hold, if you will, with your Board, and held in abeyance, pending the outcome of all of these other discussions. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. You indicated you moved the railing back? MR. KENIRY-No, on paper, I’m sorry. On paper, only on paper. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-The unfortunate irony of moving the railing back at that time is it’s precisely that which is shown on the rendering that we’ve provided you that’s dated th February 13. That was exactly what had been discussed. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t want to get into an argument with you, but the last action that this Board took was in November, November 23, 2004, and that was when it was specified that the land bridge be removed and the railings be removed. This Board has not taken any further action. MR. KENIRY-No, there was a subsequent application that we filed. I can produce the letters with Mr. Vollaro and Michael Hill was the attorney at the time who was handling it for the Town, and both very candidly said to me, don’t bother coming. Your application’s just going to be simply held in abeyance. So we did it. We did exactly what they asked us to do. So actually what I’ve provided here, and you look in my cover letter of February 14, it says specifically, enclosed here with is our supplemental or additional submission, and I deliberately wrote that, because I’ve already filed an application. I’ve already got it pending here. MR. HUNSINGER-When was that filed? MR. KENIRY-Years ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Before November of 2004? MR. KENIRY-I don’t know if I can put my fingers on it quickly, but I certainly can produce the letters. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what he’s referring to, Susan? You look as puzzled as I feel. MR. KENIRY-I can submit them. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. It’s kind of silly for you to try dig it out this evening. MR. KENIRY-I’ve got a lot of letters. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENIRY-But I’m not kidding you when I say. I mean, that’s the absolute truth. MR. TRAVER-Perhaps we need a chronology assembled. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that might be useful. MR. KENIRY-I could give you a chronology. I’ve got everything. MR. FORD-Would you mind including in that chronology the date and who was supposed to be at this meeting that you and Mrs. Hoffman attended and no one else showed up? MR. KENIRY-Well, I can tell you all the dates. There’s no problem. Here’s the letter actually. It’s July 26, 2005. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, that was after November of 2004. That’s why I was wondering. MR. KENIRY-Yes, and the letter says, “Dear Mr. Vollaro: Please accept this correspondence as confirmation that the site plan application for Jean M. Hoffman, scheduled to be considered this evening, is to be tabled. This correspondence is initiated pursuant to your request, and in accordance with the direction of your Counsel. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned immediately and directly, or alternatively have your attorneys do so. As always, thank you for your consideration. With best wishes, Very Truly Yours, Tabner, Ryan & Keniry Bill Keniry” And then I sent a carbon copy to Michael J. Hill, Esq., who was in the law firm representing the Town at the time, but I did all of those things, that was July 26, 2005. That was as a result of us having a pending application for site plan approval pending before the Planning Board. No one’s ever acted on that. To some extent, that’s how I get back here in the first instance, and back to your question, that’s why nothing has been done, or anything was 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) changed. The Town, or at least my understanding was, was not intending to put forth any further effort on the project until we could talk about it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. TRAVER-Well, tabling an application isn’t the same as getting approval for it, I don’t believe. MR. KENIRY-No doubt, no question. Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from members of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I wasn’t on the Board when this project was approved, but looking over all the documents, you know, obviously this is a troubling case. The dock, as it exists today, is clearly oversized. It falls outside of the acceptable lines of our zoning, and, you know, when I look back at the chronology and then some of the litigation that’s happened as a result of the events, you know, this started out not as a Town problem. It was a contractor problem, but now it’s become a Town problem, and it’s tying up a tremendous amount of resources, and it’s unfortunate that we are at this place. I don’t agree with the decision that was made by the Zoning Board, and I’m on the record saying that. Obviously that can’t change, and I’m wondering how they made those recommendations in December when they didn’t have a drawing that clearly specified the dimensions of this particular deck? How could they approve the square footage that’s there when they really don’t know how many square feet this deck is? And so I’m really troubled that we’re at this place, and we need more information to make a decision, unfortunately. We have to have as built drawings as far as I’m concerned. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-And I think Tom’s right. We need them by a licensed professional engineer. The amount of resources that went into constructing this deck, I certainly think that there needs to be some drawings, some professional drawings. I think that based on the approvals in the past, that the elimination of the land bridge was a condition of approval that that certainly has to be a condition of any kind of approval going forward, and the removal of the railings, you know, that was a condition of approval in the past, and that has to happen. A chronology of events, I think, would be a great idea, but the other issue is we have a very oversized deck on the lake, in a Critical Environmental Area, and we’ve held every applicant who’s come here to a very high standard, and it would be very unfair and very unjust to allow an oversized deck like this to stand. It would send a message to the entire community that it’s okay. Overbuild it and we’ll put through a modification, and then it’ll be okay, and it’s very unfortunate. It is a beautiful deck. It is a beautiful deck. There’s no doubt about that, but it doesn’t adhere to the Town Zoning Law or the Town Zoning Codes, and they’re there for a reason. MR. SEGULJIC-And the Planning Board approvals. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-So, I just had to say that. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? MR. FORD-I’d really like to come back to the, because this is very troublesome to me, that there was a meeting called. Could you reiterate that, for my edification? A meeting called where our, the Town’s Counsel and members of our Staff were due to be present and they did not show? MR. KENIRY-I mean, can I tell you that they were required to be present or something of that nature? I have no idea what their obligations are to the Town. MR. FORD-Who called the meeting, Counselor? MR. KENIRY-Which meeting? There were two meetings that I referenced. There was one meeting that was attended by me, my client, Mr. Brown, and Attorney Radner, that occurred at Town Hall at the request of your attorneys. MR. FORD-You said there was another meeting either prior to or subsequent to that. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-If I could jump in, you indicated it was a Zoning Board meeting. MR. KENIRY-There was a subsequent Zoning Board meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-That no one showed up to. MR. KENIRY-Just the members of the Zoning Board were there. That was the meeting that was subsequent to the meeting where we had done everything that we had been asked to do, in terms of submitting a revised plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you have the date of that meeting? That should be a matter of public record, then. What was the date of that meeting? MR. KENIRY-Well, I’m sure I could give it to you. I would have no problem giving you that. MR. FORD-So it was a ZBA meeting. It was not a private meeting where you were meeting with Counsel and Staff? MR. KENIRY-No. The other meeting was a private meeting that the attorneys for the Town had asked for, but that was a public meeting. I couldn’t tell you the date offhand. I’m not sure. Any of the dates I’d be very happy to give you. They’re not secrets. They’re all in the public records. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Again, just, you know, for your own information, you’re dealing with a whole new Board. There’s only two people that were here, you know, from 2004, the last time you were before us. So without that personal knowledge, we can only go by what has been submitted, or resubmitted, however you want to term it, and it really lacks from what we’re used to seeing, to be blunt. MR. KENIRY-I must tell you that this submission that you have, and you’ll see it, I think in the submission packet there’s a checklist. I came to another meeting at the Town to go over what the required content of this supplemental application was. I mean, this is exactly and precisely what I was, and I’ll give you anything you want. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not saying your application’s incomplete. Your application is complete enough for you to appear before the Board. Otherwise you wouldn’t be here, but, you know, this Board always has the prerogative of asking for additional information. MR. KENIRY-And I’ll tell you, you give me a list of what you want, I respect that. I will produce anything, but in all fairness, I mean, the submission that I’ve made is only precisely that that I was told to give you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s fair, and until we review it and sit down and talk to you, we don’t know what else we might need or require. MR. KENIRY-Is there any indication of anything else that is required at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-I know we’d like to see complete as built drawings. Some of the notes that I had made, members feel free to add, it should include various elevations, length of the dock from the mean high water, height of the dock, height of the top railing and the sundeck from the mean high water. I’d like to see a drawing that shows just the decking, including the decking that was built along the shore. MR. FORD-The overall actual dimensions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the overall dimensions. That’s what I meant by elevations. MR. SEGULJIC-As built drawings of the structure, including all relevant features, including but not limited to. MR. HUNSINGER-Good way to phrase it. MR. SEGULJIC-Land bridge, railing, sun deck, roof, docks, piers, with dimensions, signed and sealed by a PE. One of my concerns, also, is if you do, well, when you do remove the land bridge, is it going to compromise the structure of the existing deck? So that should also be included in an evaluation by a PE, structural PE, to determine, you know, is the land bridge anchoring the deck. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else members would like to see? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to see a copy of the deed, but that’s something we’ll get through Staff and the subdivision plat. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do we want to put it in the motion? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we can get it ourselves. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-What about the chronology of events? MR. SEGULJIC-And the chronology of all events, and the Zoning Board meeting you alleged you came to and no Staff was here. MR. KENIRY-I’m sorry? MR. SEGULJIC-You, earlier, said that there was a Zoning Board meeting you came to and there was no Staff member here? MR. KENIRY-The Zoning Board meeting that I attended, I can’t tell you that date offhand. I’m sure it’s public record. I’m sure there are minutes. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no idea when it was. MR. FORD-There was no Counsel, and there was no Staff at that meeting. MR. KENIRY-That’s my recollection. It’s a pretty clear recollection. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we’d just like to have the minutes from that meeting. MR. KENIRY-Okay. I can give you the minutes from every meeting, if that’s what you’d like. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that’s what we’d like. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Susan, in the agenda, it does say that there was a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wishes to make comments to the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open. Would anyone like to put forward a motion to table this application? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just hoping if I do it I have everything. Tabled to May, the second meeting in May? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s going to have to be. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, because they’ve already missed the application deadline for next month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we have a backlog. Let me just ask Counsel. If we table this until May, does that create any difficulties, with respect to the settlement with the ZBA? MR. FULLER-With the settlement? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, was there any deadline by which we had to act on this? th MR. FULLER-There is a deadline. I believe it’s May 30. th MR. HUNSINGER-May 30. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) th MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if we don’t act by May 30? MR. FULLER-Then the settlement with the ZBA. MR. SEGULJIC-Goes away. th MR. FULLER-Well, they have to be done, the project has to be completed by May 30 of 2007. So if it’s not, they’ve got to go back to the ZBA again. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the agenda look like for April? And I guess the other question would be, of the applicant, how quickly they could get us the information we need. I rd know we have a backlog of applications right now. We’re starting to say until May 23. MRS. BARDEN-We have 18. MR. HUNSINGER-For April, and we already missed the deadline for submissions. Okay. Do you have any sense for how quickly you could get the drawing to us, and the other information? MR. KENIRY-Very candidly, I don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KENIRY-Because it’s not within my personal control and not within the applicant’s control. We certainly can go as fast as we possibly can. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-It would be reasonable if you wanted to give a cutoff date and say by this date. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENIRY-Is there a submission deadline date that you typically? th MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s the 15 of the month for the following month. So we’ve already passed the submission deadline for April, but oftentimes when we table a project, we’ll give you, you know, a deadline, and provided the material is submitted by that deadline, then we will hear you, you know, the following month. th MRS. STEFFAN-I would say April 4. That’s two weeks. th MR. HUNSINGER-If we give them until April 4, because that’s a Friday, and then they’d th be on the agenda for the 24 of April. MR. FULLER-I’m thinking two weeks. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. KENIRY-Certainly from my perspective, for the things that you’ve asked of me, they’re easy. I can get you minutes from the website, those things. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Yes. MR. KENIRY-I just don’t know, as far as the gentleman’s request with respect to the as th builts, that by the 4 they would be produced, just knowing how long it takes, generally, to get that type of work done, and get it lined up to have someone do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KENIRY-So, I guess my point is we’ll do everything we can, but I just don’t know. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we give them until that Friday, then, April 6. MRS. BRUNO-When your contractor acted unilaterally to build this structure, did he supply himself with drawings? Did he take the drawings that you had agreed to and then change them, or did he do it on the fly? The reason why I’m asking is I’m just thinking that if you have some sort of documentation. I have no idea what the relationship is now with that contractor. I would imagine it’s rather strained. Perhaps if he has something in 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) hand that may help any PE that you could hire this time of year just to speed the process up. Just a thought. MR. KENIRY-The answer to your question is that, from what we understand, he used the plans that were approved by the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-The 1170 square foot structure plans? MR. KENIRY-He used the plans that were originally approved by the Town to build this improvement. MR. SEGULJIC-And how big were those plans? What was the allowance on those plans? MR. KENIRY-Actually you have the, I think I gave you some parts of the original application, and I don’t know that I can answer your question, just off the top of my head. MR. SEGULJIC-Because the original approval was for 1,170 square feet. MR. KENIRY-Right. Those are the plans that he used. MR. SEGULJIC-So he doubled the size on his own? MR. KENIRY-I think he testified that he changed the plans on his own. That was his sworn testimony. MR. SEGULJIC-Doubling the size of the structure? MR. KENIRY-That’s his sworn testimony. I have the testimony actually, I can provide it, but I think that the, what the Zoning Board determined was that it was, and these were based on measurements that were done by the people at the Town, that it was three and a half feet too high, and that the site area, in terms of square footage of the sundeck, was 978 feet, instead of 700 feet, which was approved, and our request now is for the 704 square feet. I’m not sure where your numbers. MR. SEGULJIC-Resolution approving Site Plan No. 50-2001, 1,170 square foot boathouse with an 800 square foot. MR. KENIRY-I’m not sure, is that the original? JEAN HOFFMAN MRS. HOFFMAN-The boathouse is correct. The boathouse is correct. The only problem is it’s too high, and they made the deck too big, but the boathouse itself is correct. MR. HUNSINGER-You mean the decking and the underneath. MRS. HOFFMAN-The wharf. MR. HUNSINGER-And see that’s what we can determine from the drawings that were submitted. MS. HOFFMAN-Okay. That’s correct. The Town never had a problem with that. It was just that it was basically the railing was too high and the deck was too big. That’s the whole crux of everything. MR. TRAVER-And the land bridge. MRS. HOFFMAN-Well, we got permission to put the land bridge on. MR. KENIRY-Right. We have approval from the, our object is to try to just get back to the original, we never wanted anything overbuilt. As I say, from her perspective, she was quite content. We personally were here together and obtained all of the original underlying approvals. That’s all we’re trying to accomplish. The idea of getting some type of super sized deck or a super size project has never been Mrs. Hoffman’s object. In all frankness, if we wanted to super size it, we would have done it when I sought the original variances and the original site plan. She was very satisfied with all of those original approvals. She was very satisfied with the fact that the land bridge was 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) approved by this Planning Board, granted not you all personally as the members, but your Town Planning Board. Those things were perfectly fine to her. That’s all we’re trying to do is get back to the original project and to some extent to try to get into the wisdom of why we’re proposing what we are. We’re trying to shrink the square footage to get it back to what it was supposed to be, on the deck, I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that just has always bothered me, ever since I heard, you know, what had happened, it’s your testimony that the contractor acted on his own behalf, unilaterally, overbuilt the structure. Did he have insurance? MR. KENIRY-No. MRS. HOFFMAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-He had no insurance? MR. KENIRY-Nothing. He testified to that, too. A gentleman on the Zoning Board asked him. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Because I was just wondering why you didn’t go after him or his insurance or whatever. MR. KENIRY-That’s precisely the case. There’s no remedy. There’s no practical result. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it kind of goes back to Mrs. Steffan’s comments earlier, that this was a problem between you and your contractor that now has become our problem. So, it’s a logical question. MR. KENIRY-And from our perspective, obviously our object is not to foist it on you. The first thing that she did, after doing the measurements with the member of the Staff, was she came here, and there’s no doubt about it. It’s an after the fact request for the variance. We don’t deny that, but we didn’t sit there and just say, the heck with this. The first thing we did was we came to the Town and explained the circumstances. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-May I just go back a little over two years, when I wasn’t here, but this is from minutes of the Queensbury Planning Board, November 23, 2004. Now therefore Be It Resolved, that we find the following. The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: One, The land bridge be removed, and, two, No railings will be reinstalled on the top portion of the boathouse roof, and Three, Revised plans to be submitted to Town Planning Office no later than December 31, 2004 which correctly illustrate the removal of the railings, the land bridges, and show the corrected height given by the ZBA variance to the top of the roof line. MR. KENIRY-I think you’re 100% accurate. I mean, I don’t have those minutes before me. I don’t doubt that that’s what the minutes say, and I think to some extent we talked about that. Two things. I had a specific and pointed conversation with your Counsel about not disturbing anything at that site, and also with the court, and we’ve abided by that. MRS. BRUNO-You could have easily had drawings put together without disturbing anything on the site. I think that’s where Mr. Ford is going with this. MR. KENIRY-But we’ve been with the prerequisite to get to you ultimately for a site plan was to be at the Zoning Board. We’ve been at the Zoning Board at least three or four times. We’ve had a landscape architect testify. They’ve asked for enumerable things. MR. FORD-So the reason that this was not implemented is because an agreement that you had with a Town’s Counsel and through court action? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s kind of the same questions I was asking him before. MR. FULLER-Actually, you just had the same confusion I did. You’re looking at rd resolution 51-01. Right, from November 23? MR. HUNSINGER-2004, yes. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. FORD-November 23, 2004, correct. MR. FULLER-Yes, that’s what you’re looking at. The resolution that approved the project is 50-2001, and as part of that application, the original application to the Planning Board, the land bridge was approved as part of that application. That came after the fact, after they came back once it was discovered that it was incorrect. MR. SEGULJIC-They came back for a modification. MR. KENIRY-That’s precisely correct, and I’ll tell you. MR. SEGULJIC-And as part of the approval, we requested the land bridge be taken down, from the modification. MR. KENIRY-In 2004, right. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. KENIRY-But the point is in 2001, which is what we’re trying to talk about and get to, is we’re just trying to do our original project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a resolution ready? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Susan, I have one question. On the agenda, it said that this is Modification Number Two. Is that significant? In the motion, do I need, on the agenda, it says Site Plan No. 50-2001 Modification Number Two? MRS. BARDEN-I would specify that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE MODIFICATION #2 TO SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 JEAN HOFFMAN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Table this to the April 24 meeting with a th submission deadline of April 6, so that the applicant will return, after submission of as- built drawings to scale, by a licensed professional engineer. The drawings should include but not be limited to the land bridge, the railing, the roofs, various elevations, all from the mean high water mark, with overall dimensions. We would also like the applicant to provide a chronology of events for this project for the Planning Board. Also, the minutes of the testimony of the dock contractor, as well as the meeting the applicant stated he came to but no Staff showed up to, and that would be included in the chronology. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-So essentially we’re disregarding our motion of 2004? MR. FULLER-That decision is what is pending before the court right now. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. FULLER-And I quickly tried to flip through but I couldn’t find it, but that’s why they’ve gone to the ZBA on the three Article 78’s against the ZBA, and they’re here before you in an attempt to resolve the cases. So they wouldn’t take action on that dock without that litigation being resolved. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FULLER-I wouldn’t expect it to. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-And the tabling motion is to provide the information that we need in order to be able to make your decision on that litigation. MR. FULLER-On that litigation, that’s right. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-And I hate to sound cynical, but part of their argument now will be, well, gee, we’ve been enjoying the dock as it is for all of these years, and no one’s complained. Right? MR. KENIRY-We would have enjoyed it a lot more if this had never happened. I’ll tell you. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sure. MR. KENIRY-And I’d say that in all sincerity. That’s not a wise. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll see you in April. MR. KENIRY-Thank you. Have a good evening. SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MT ASSOCIATES, INC. AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): DANIEL LOMBARD ZONING: HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION: 1477 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,135 SQUARE FOOT CONVENIENCE STORAGE W/FAST FOOD VENDORS, A 3,160 SQ. FOOT FUEL ISLAND AND A 1,025 SQ. FT. CAR WASH. CONVENIENCE STORE/GASOLINE STATION/CAR WASH USES IN THE HC-INTENSIVE ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 62-06, AV 54-89, UV 74-89, SP 35-99 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/11/06 LOT SIZE: 1.99 ACRES [2.43 RPS] TAX MAP NO. 288.-1-59 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-MT Associates is the applicant. The request is for Site plan review for 3,135 square foot convenience store with fast food vendors, 3,136 square foot fuel island canopy, and a 1,025 square foot car wash. The property is located on the west side of Route 9, just south of Rte. 149. The SEQRA Status is Unlisted. A Long Environmental Assessment Form has been submitted. Minor changes to Part I should be made prior to the Board’s proceeding to Part II. With regards to the site plan, Staff has some outstanding concerns regarding building design and site lighting. The Town Engineer th has submitted a comment letter dated March 13. The public hearing remains open for this project. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Susan. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Jim Secor, to my right, the project engineer, Kirk Moore, to my left, the project architect. Ken Wirstead is here from Creighton Manning Traffic Engineering, and Frank Trombetta, an officer of the applicant, MT Associates, is here as well. Since we were here last time, we’ve made a very detailed submission in February and we have Staff Notes and engineering notes. I’d like to just start out to ask Kirk, the architect, to just show you the new elevation. We submitted a photo rendering that you had asked for last time, just to show how this all works on the site, and I think that it’s a lot clearer, in terms of the carwash and the convenience store and the fuel pumps, now that we’ve submitted the photo rendering. So I’d just like to start there and then we assume that we’ll go through the Staff Notes and go through the engineering comments and open it up to discussion from the Board. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-That sounds fine. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thanks. KIRK MOORE MR. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I believe we submitted 11 by 17 reduced drawings of the site plan, but I have a colored version, if you’d like, for each of the Board members, if that would be helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be helpful. Thanks. MR. MOORE-I think there’s 10 copies there. MR. HUNSINGER-Just make sure Staff gets one, too, thanks. MR. MOORE-As Jon said, what I’ll do is just give you a quick overview of the changes we made from the last hearing, I believe we were before you last in December, and we tried to be responsive to some of the comments we heard at that particular hearing, just starting with the site plan. One of the things that I recall pretty clearly is there was a desire to see a little more green space in front of the building and breaking up the front circulation area with planting areas. What we did is we’ve adjusted, Number One, the layout to correspond to the variance that was granted by the Zoning Board, in terms of the gas pump canopy area, and we also adjusted the carwash building and the convenience store, that allowed us to extend these planting areas out front and added some additional landscaping around the buildings, increasing the interior landscape. We’ve also made some slight modifications to parking, which I believe is all described in the two re-submittals we’ve made since December. I think that’s pretty much it, in terms of the overall site. There’s been some slight changes to lighting, in response to the initial Staff comments and reducing the lighting levels. I believe our overall average is at least are in compliance with the Ordinance at this time. The other request that was made was to take a look at the exterior elevations and modify them to provide some gable ends, perhaps, on the fronts of the buildings. I have the previous elevations, and I think those are included in your package, if you wanted to compare them, but for example, initially the car wash was just a flat roof building, and as you can see in the 3-D rendering here, we’ve now put a gable end on the front and we’ve added some detail on the front of that to give it a little bit more articulation, and we’ve done the same on the front of the convenience store. We’ve added some medallions and a little more articulation of the masonry façade around the building, more of a stone base. It’s actually a cut stone base with brick above, and we did this 3-D rendering to help give you a better idea of what it would look like in real life. So that’s pretty much it in general. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Okay. First we’ll look at the Staff comments. Susan had pointed out that there was not a Floor Area worksheet. One was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but it apparently wasn’t included in the Planning Board application. We’re only at 7.4%, 7.3% FAR. So that’s not even close here, but I did, and when we got the comments yesterday, I did fax that to Susan, so that’s in the record, and she was right that it was missing, but it’s not a problem at 7.3%, and we made the changes that she requested to the EAF, to conform them to the Notice of Intent, in terms of the percentages and things, and to conform the vehicle trips to the most recent traffic report from Creighton Manning. You probably don’t want to see anything tonight. We have copies of the new EAF if you’d like it. MR. HUNSINGER-You can give them to Staff. Sorry, Susan. MR. LAPPER-And, Susan, you did get the FAR? MRS. BARDEN-I did not. MR. LAPPER-You did not. Okay. I have copies of that as well. MR. HUNSINGER-While you were talking on traffic, and I don’t mean to cut into your presentation. MR. LAPPER-No, of course. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-One of the things that I found confusing, and maybe you can shed light on it, maybe you can’t. In the Vision Engineering comments, they talked about the difference between the different codes, the trip generation codes, but they didn’t say what the corresponding numbers were. MR. LAPPER-Ken Wirstead will talk about that, as soon as we get to the Vision letter, which is pretty quick. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But in general it’s the difference between whether you treat it as one facility or if it was like a separate Dunkin Donuts, a separate Subway shop, and added them together in terms of the number of trips, but Ken believes that this is correct, and we just got the comments from Vision, obviously, in the last couple of days. MR. FORD-Okay. You have not received the Vision Engineering, you just got it? MR. LAPPER-We just got their comments a few days ago, Friday, I guess. So we’ll go through that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-Because there are some specific needs and so forth delineated in there that you’ll want to address. KEN WIRSTEAD MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes, I think as Jon said, we’re going to cover traffic all in one shot when we get to the Vision letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WIRSTEAD-I just noted, as a reminder, while Frank is here, if he could sign the application that we just gave to Susan, so we could get that out of the way, the EAF application. On the site plan, there was a note regarding Drawing SD-100 on the parking th tabulations. That has been corrected on the submittal that was made on February 14. Next comment was regarding interior dimensions on the submitted floor plan should reflect floor areas called out per use on the overall site plan SD-100. The floor plans that we submitted do not have any interior dimensions. The Floor Areas are calculated in accordance with the definitions under the by-law to interior wall planes, and also on, I believe it’s the restaurant use, where you have a deduction for storage spaces. That’s been pulled out. So that’s why, if you just get a calculation of the outside dimensions, it will not match the tabulation or the area tabulations that are on SD-100. The next comment, we, I think have acknowledged in the last hearing that we would be coming back to this Board for site plan review concerning the reserved parking that we’re asking for. We have done a cursory evaluation, which Jim can speak to, if you wanted him to elaborate on it, but we’re confident that that is a solution that can be done, that can be engineered, and they’ve done that assessment. The next comment, we were not clear on what the issue was. It says the future interconnect shown to the north doesn’t work as located. The access road to future parking could be relocated between spaces 21 and 22. It, in fact, could. We’re not sure why Staff had a concern with that. I don’t know if they can give us some insight on that tonight. We’re confident the way we’ve shown it works, but we’re just not clear on what the concern was on that particular aspect of that comment. The adjoining property owner, they’re asking if the adjoining property owner has been approached regarding the feasibility. I believe Jon addressed that. There was a question to that effect in December, and as I understand it, the intent of the interconnect provision in the Ordinance is just to simply show that that is possible future connection that can be made, and that the burden isn’t on the applicant to acquire easements and permission. I don’t know if you want to speak more to that, Jon. MR. LAPPER-We’re showing it. I know that the neighbor is here tonight and certainly will build it any time that they agree that we can access their site, and they may want that now, because it may be helpful in terms of customers, but if they agree, we’re ready to build it, and otherwise we’ll show it as an easement. MR. WIRSTEAD-The next paragraph is concerning the building design, and there’s reference to a convenience store in Manchester. It indicates that that has a Dunkin Donuts. It does not actually. It’s an Exxon station with a convenience store, and that’s the exclusive use. I guess, to be candid about it, our position is this is the design that we 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) would like to get an approval on. MT has been looking to develop a new prototypical store with a new, fresh look. We’ve put a lot of effort into this design. We have made some compromises on it, and I think it’s been responsive to the comments that we got from you all in December, and we feel it’ll be a handsome addition to that area of Town, and it will be an attractive building. It’s certainly not one that’s inexpensive or the cheapest to building. Our client, you know, is willing to spend money to make it and attractive building, and we would like an approval for that design. The next comment th was regarding lighting. It’s true, we did not re-submit in the February 14 re-submittal a full size drawing of E-100. The response that we provided in that was a written response to comments that were given to us from January, and we had done a re-submittal in, I th believe December, yes, December 14, which was our first re-submittal from the original application that did modify the lighting plan, reducing the light levels significantly from the Staff comments that we have received from the original application, and I think if you look closely at E-100, at least the lighting averages, I believe, fall under the provisions of the Ordinance, or very, very close to them, and there is this outstanding discussion about the four to one ratio, and I guess, again, to be candid about it, you know, that’s a definition that needs to be more specific because there’s lots of ways of looking at that, and it depends on what areas you’re looking at for specific fixtures, as well as what elevations, and generally those are specified for that four to one ratio to be real specific on it. We’re concerned the lighting levels are woefully low. Our lighting consultant was so concerned they put a disclaimer on the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve seen that before. MR. WIRSTEAD-And I’m sure you have. Of course a lighting person would like to see more light all the time, but we think that if we haven’t met your expectations on lighting, we’re very, very close, and I would hope that if that’s a real concern to you, that’s something we could work with your Staff on to just tweak the lighting slightly, because I think we’re very close on that particular component. The light poles, we’ve shown them in the rendering as kind of a silver white. I happen to notice, driving in tonight, that the fire station has white light poles and fixtures. I think they’re attractive, but if it’s a major concern, I think we’re flexible on the color of the fixtures themselves. I would suggest that we try to match a color on the building, particularly the storefront, which we’re calling out as a slate gray, which is a blue/gray color. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just not red. MR. WIRSTEAD-Right, not red, and I think that’s it. MR. LAPPER-I want to just talk about the, in terms of the photometrics, the three existing light poles. When the Town added the lights to the outlet area, it was the request by the store tenants and the plaza owners that, in the Christmas season especially in the winter, that it’s very dark and lifeless, and they were, not that we have a lot of that kind of crime in Queensbury, but that it was a safety issue, and that’s why the Town did the lighting district and put those lights in specifically to brighten up the roadway. So those are rather bright, the lights that the Town put in, but that was the intention, and if we take that into account, it will probably throw off our photometric plan, but in terms of the site, we’d certainly try to comply with the requirements on the site, and next it’s the Vision Engineering. JIM SECOR MR.SECOR-Jim Secor. We’ve been in contact with both Mike Shaw from the Sewer Department, as well as Scott from the Water Department. I believe Scott had a comment letter at our previous meeting. We’ve addressed all those with a re-submittal in November. As a matter of fact, I discussed it with both Mike and Scott this morning. They don’t have any adverse comments, but Mike’s comment was that he usually doesn’t issue us a permit until after your permits have been issued, but we’ve addressed all their concerns, and we don’t think there’s going to be any issues. MR. LAPPER-The Vision Engineering comments start off with traffic. So we’re going to ask Ken Wirstead from Creighton Manning to address those. MR. WIRSTEAD-Hi. Ken Wirstead, Creighton Manning Engineering. We’re the traffic consultant on the project, and from our original evaluation, we had gone through and looked at the site plan. We had estimated how much traffic it was going to generate, and the driveways it was going to use, as well as the turning movements in and out of the site. Accompanying that letter report dated, last revised December 14, 2006, the back end of the report included several diagrams illustrating a truck with a boat trailer or 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) camper circulating through the site, and a motor home or RV circulating through the site. Our turning movements were concentrated out in the front of the site, and one of Vision’s comments included showing some of those vehicles maneuvering through the site, but without impacting some of the existing parking spaces. We had followed up that information with subsequent turning movement diagrams and illustrated those vehicles traveling through the site for the motor home and the truck and the trailer, and subsequent to that, we received additional comments on those turning movements, and I brought some boards with me. So I’ll just illustrate those. This first diagram, and I’ve got copies of this with me if you’d like to look at them up close. Essentially the comment was having these vehicles circulate into the rear of the building. We’ve got this truck and trailer circulating through the front of the site and coming in to behind of the site, circulating around the car wash, and then coming out to here and exiting. These other two maneuvering diagrams are similar to the ones already presented in our first diagrams. MR. FORD-How do you address the point that was made about the RV’s or vehicles with trailers entering the site and parking in the rear? MR. WIRSTEAD-The site has the RV parking, or has the RV circulation through here. We got those comments and we started discussing an area that the RV’s and so forth could park. Obviously, the parking out in front here could be used, an RV or a boat and trailer would just occupy two spaces along the front of the site. In the rear of the site, they could come around and this is most likely going to be used for employee parking, because it is in the back of the store. They could also utilize this area to park their vehicle on the, you know, run in to make a purchase and then exit. This diagram shows the RV circulating around the site and coming around the car wash and also being able to exit, and then the last comment had to do with the tractor trailer deliveries, and with that we have the tractor trailer out on Route 9 coming in to the site, pulling in to the loading dock, or the loading zone area, unloading its goods into the service door at the corner of the building here. The truck would then back out and then circulate around the car wash and then exit out the southern driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, do you mind if I ask some traffic questions? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-What happens if someone’s parked at the vacuum? MR. WIRSTEAD-Parked at the vacuum? This one right here? MR. SEGULJIC-I believe so, that’s along Route 9. Looking at your travel path, that would stop the tractor trailer from going through and jam up the whole site. MR. WIRSTEAD-This other one here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. WIRSTEAD-Correct. For the other uses, the tractor trailer and for the other movements, there’s an area between the vacuum and the exiting curb area of the car wash that they could circulate around that, but depending on how large that vehicle was, if you had a truck and a boat trailer and they were parked there, you know, using the vacuum for whatever reason, then it would block that area. MR. FORD-Of if there was someone waiting to get to the vacuum area. MR. WIRSTEAD-Correct. They would have to basically wait there until that person finished what they were doing and moved on. There’s also a vacuum area located to the north, at the north end of the site, which has a parking space immediately next to it. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess my overall concern is statically you can show the site works, but as soon as you introduce anything else, I don’t think it’s going to work. For example, I think it’s on your first drawing you had the green, guess that truck with the trailer going through, and if I work from, consider my northern most pump Number One, then working to the south pump, Number Two, that, if there was a car fueling at either pump there, the vehicle would not be able to make it through there. So I can just see this whole site getting jammed very quickly and easily. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. WIRSTEAD-It’s part of the driver of the vehicle deciding, you know, which pump they’re going to use, and if they’re, similar to if there was a passenger car parked there, a passenger car would have to wait until the other people left as well. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess you only can, a truck or a car pulling a trailer go to pump Number Three, shall I say, Number Three down to the south. MR. WIRSTEAD-This one here? There’s fuel pumps and then there’s also fueling stations. Obviously one pump has a station on either side. So if you’re talking about the third pump down, it’s going to be the middle one, correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. WIRSTEAD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Could the vehicle make it through there, make the maneuver from Route 9, serpentine there and up through the middle and back around? MR. WIRSTEAD-I believe some of the vehicles would. They would probably have to traverse through this parking area in the front, striped area. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m sensing here is there’s very limited movement where these vehicles can make it, and as soon as you put another vehicle in their way, it’s all over. Is that accurate? MR. WIRSTEAD-The site is designed primarily for the passenger vehicle, recognizing that we’re going to have motor homes and trucks with RV’s and so forth. There are areas of the site that can accommodate them, and they’re not going to be able to go, you know, completely around every single pump and every, you know, portion of the site, obviously, but there are areas that can accommodate those vehicles. So I guess the question comes up is how frequently is that going to occur, and even if you have passenger cars at all of these spots, and another passenger came in, you know, to wait for a pump, they would also have to wait outside the pump area. MR. SEGULJIC-And then I guess lastly, let’s say one of these trucks does pull up to a pump to gas up, his trailer his going to be hanging way out. MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes. It’s the function of, you know, having a truck with a trailer on it. MR. SEGULJIC-And people have a tendency to drag a lot of stuff around here. MR. WIRSTEAD-If they were to, you know, use a fast food restaurant in the area, or even go to the Outback, you know, any of the other uses in this area, that’s going to be a factor, that, you know, that driver’s going to have to contend with. He’s going to not be able to park up close next to a building because his trailer’s going to be sticking out into a parking aisle. So he’s going to have to find a back portion of the site where there isn’t anybody to basically block his vehicle MR. SEGULJIC-I’m very concerned about the traffic circulation. MR. MOORE-I just want to refresh your memory a little bit from our last hearing, which was a long time ago, in December, but as far as the semi-tractor trailer, we’re talking about a day. So I really don’t think that’s a significant concern. We’ve also provided for beverage deliveries and dry good deliveries at a delivery zone in the front of the building for the smaller trucks. So those trucks will pull right up to the front, in that delivery area, like a beer truck or a Coca Cola, or whatever. So we’re really only talking about one semi coming through this site per day. You’re right. We could come up, I mean, we could talk about this all night. There’s always going to be a maneuver through there with some combination of a vehicle that we could find a way that it’s not going to work. The only answer is to build a truck stop and have three acres of paved parking and, you know, hundreds of feet around it and everybody can go wherever they want. I mean, I don’t think that’s your goal is here. This particular configuration is a very, I can tell you from doing quite a few convenience stores, there’s a generous amount of maneuvering room around the site. In fact, we’re happy to have the opportunity to do that, because most of the sites we’ve done have been much smaller than this, much tighter. They’re usually retrofits of existing buildings or previous gas stations into convenience stores. So we’re very comfortable that we’ve provided the best of all worlds, in balancing, trying to keep some green space in the interior of the site as well as not over paving it, if you have it. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. FULLER-Jon, just real quick, one point, just to remind everybody to state your name when you start. MR. LAPPER-That was Kirk Moore, the architect. Jon Lapper, for the record. In terms of the motor home example or a car pulling a trailer. If you’re driving a motor home, you know you can’t go everywhere. For example, like Ken pointed out, you can’t go through a McDonald’s drive thru or you’re going to hit the canopy, and this, the diagram that Creighton Manning did shows it with a sweeping movement, and, you know, sometimes you have to do a three point turn if you’re driving a motor home, just because it’s a such a big vehicle, but every site is not designed so that it can accommodate a motor home at every pump or a car with a boat, because those are extra large vehicles, and that’s why, if it’s really extra large, they go to the truck stop at Exit 16, but what this shows is that these vehicles, as long as they chose the right path, can be accommodated on this site. So that there is room to maneuver, and we think that that standard is a fair standard, unless you wanted to have this designed like a truck stop. MR. SEGULJIC-Or if you put your pumps, you have them perpendicular across the site. If you put them parallel across the site, then they could just come in at the island and go out. MR. LAPPER-That was something that one of the neighbors had talked about, but because of the dimensions of this site being long and narrow, the site narrows too much, and there’s a grade issue. It’s just the site lays out much better in terms of the turning movements this way. MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead, Creighton Manning Engineering. I think part of that also has to do with when you have the pumps in parallel. The cars to line up would be, essentially stacked in front of each other, and when you’ve got, you know, one of those cars has the fuel station on the other side of the car, they come in and now they’re trying to parallel park between two other vehicles, and, you know, gas up because that’s the side that the fuel gas cap is on their vehicle. So when that occurs, you’ve got a line of cars that are coming in and out, parallel parking around each other, and it makes it more difficult. It makes it more inconvenient for vehicles just to pull in with the pump on the correct side of the vehicle and then pull immediately out. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let me ask, riddle me this. How many trailers, shall we say camper trailers and snow mobile trailers, do you expect to go in there? MR. WIRSTEAD-I don’t have a specific estimate of what the component of what the traffic is going to be in terms of how many are going to be RV’s. If you were to compare this area to, you know, say downtown Albany, I think this area is going to have, you know, quite a bit more than, you know, downtown Albany because it’s a different environment. MR. SEGULJIC-Especially considering it’s two RV parks just down the road. MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes. MR. FORD-If you had only sedans, how many could you gas simultaneously there, fuel, re-fuel? MR. WIRSTEAD-Ten. MR. FORD-Ten of them. MR. LAPPER-But we’ve shown that the site can accommodate trucks and trailers and motor homes. MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes. There are locations on the site, and then also, you know, getting back to your original comment, the truck and trailer can negotiate into the center pump island, which is the third pump, working from the north to the south. It can maneuver through there, and this was part of the December, last revised December 14, 2006 memo. The vehicles can move on to the site. They can gas up, you know, and they can exit the site. MR. FORD-I voiced this concern before and I just want to reiterate it tonight because I think that you’re encouraging it, and I think that there will be those who will try to get 14 eggs in this one dozen box. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. LAPPER-Well, we wanted to show you the photo rendering, which really shows you that the site lays out pretty nicely in terms of how big a paved area there is, how much distance there is between the front property line and the building for maneuvering, and as Kirk said on the record, he’s done a lot of this type of facility for this client and for others, and that this provides more room than a lot of the gas station convenience stores certainly that we have in Town here. This is much bigger, if you think about Cumberland Farms that have just been re-done. This is a much larger site than that, for example. MR. SEGULJIC-But I think we have to keep in mind, this is at the Route 9/149 intersection, which is known as, you know, a gasoline alley where everyone goes to Vermont through. There’s a lot of cars and a lot of boats go through there. MR. LAPPER-Well, those same cars are going through Exit 19, and gassing up there. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one thing I would like to see is some type of traffic count with regards to how many trailers would be going through there actually, how big a problem this could be. Because I, personally, think it’s going to be a big problem. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re showing that they can be accommodated on this site, they can gas up. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re showing that as long as there’s no car behind. MR. LAPPER-But otherwise they wait. MR. SEGULJIC-And I don’t see how the trailer’s going to be hanging out, potentially, into the entranceway. MR. LAPPER-But if you’re driving a trailer, you’re not going to put it into the entranceway. You’re going to pull off and wait on the side until there’s a spot for you, or you’re going to go to another gas station. MR. SEGULJIC-Where are they going to pull off and wait for a spot? MR. LAPPER-In front of the building. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re going to pull in front of the building, and be able to come serpentine back around, you’re saying? MR. LAPPER-There’s nothing remarkable about this. If you’re driving a motor home, you look and you’re careful and you see where you can go. I mean, to say that you think you need to impose a different standard on this site because it’s closer to the RV park, the RV’s come from Albany or from wherever else, through Town to get here. There’s nothing that’s so remarkable. We’re saying that we’ve provided more room than some of the other gas station, convenience stores that this Board has recently approved, Exit 18, for example. MR. SEGULJIC-But I don’t think they’re going to see the traffic that this site’s going to see. MRS. STEFFAN-I also think we have to remember that there is an Exxon station just, right before the exit off the Northway, off Exit 20, and so there’s a Mobil station there that has a Subway in it, and so for the traffic traveling toward Route 149 or Lake George, they’ll have something on their side of the road. They’re not going to have a Dunkin Donuts, but, you know, that will be accommodated on, say northbound. So this is southbound traffic. MR. SEGULJIC-But keep in mind, their pumps are parallel, not configured like this, so I think it’s much easier to maneuver through that site. MR. LAPPER-But you’ve asked us to show you, and we’ve shown you, with a traffic and engineering report, that there’s plenty of room to maneuver. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, in static conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Can you comment on the other points in the letter? 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead, Creighton Manning. The other point that Mr. Ryan th brought up was the trip generation. In our original traffic analysis dated December 14, we had looked at the site based on ITE land use code, which represented a service station with convenience market and a car wash. With that estimate, we had estimated that the site would generate approximately 106 vehicles during the AM peak hour and approximately 134 vehicles during the PM peak hour. Obviously, the AM and the PM peak hours correspond to peak times that most people are commuting to and from work in the morning and the afternoon. Mr. Ryan’s original comment was relevant to the use of the different ITE codes and the different uses on site and suggested that to offer a conservative analysis that we break out the individual components, and then add them up into a worst case scenario. We didn’t feel that that was the appropriate method to do that because it would assume that essentially you have a gas station, a convenience market next to it, and a car wash next to it, as separate individual land uses, and doesn’t take into account the draw that a single site would have offering these additional amenities. So we presented that argument. Mr. Ryan, I think, understood that, but also asked to see what it would look like, or how much traffic would be generated, if the site were looked at as a convenience market with the gas station as the kind of ancillary component. So we did look at that based on a convenience market with service station, or with gas pumps, and we’ve estimated that the site would generate approximately 170 trips in the morning peak hour and 192 in the afternoon peak hour, which is th approximately 60 more than we had estimated in our December 14 memo. MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry, was that 16 or 60? I didn’t write the numbers down. MR. WIRSTEAD-Approximately 60. When we look at how much traffic is coming from traffic that’s already going by this site on Route 9, we’d estimated that at least half of that traffic would be, you know, commuters who are already traveling down 149, down 9 to the Northway and so forth. So that basically the net increase or difference between new trips would be approximately 30 cars in the morning and approximately 30 cars in the afternoon. So, at those kind of levels, it really comes down to how convenient the site is going to be. I think in the morning it’s going you’re going to see traffic pulling into there, stopping, gassing up, making the right out to travel south. In the afternoon I would expect that there would be less traffic because the project’s on the opposite side of the road. They’d have to make a left to get off of Route 9, move into the site, and then make a left to exit the site, while continuing on to their final destination. So with that, that kind of addressed his first comment of his March 13, 2007 letter. MR. HUNSINGER-And this is the response that you gave Staff earlier? MR. WIRSTEAD-No, this is based on the new comments that we received just a few days ago. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead. Another point that we raised in our original letter had to do with the car wash and the seasonality of it. Obviously right now we’re getting some warmer weather, and the snow melt is coming down, making the roads wet, and we find that we’ve gotten our cars a lot dirtier because of all the salt, versus the summer when it’s nice out. We can stay at home, you know, let the dog out, and you know, wash our cars in our driveway. It’s not very convenient to do that during the winter, obviously, so that’s when the peak time of the carwash would operate, and being as an ancillary use of the convenience store and gas station, it’s not going to be a primary generator, in that people are going to drive from their homes just to get their car washed. They’re going to more likely show up on site, gas up, perhaps, you know, get some coffee and say, you know, my car looks dirty. I’m going to run through the car wash. There are a lot of current gas stations that will allow you, if you’re paying by credit card or so forth, to purchase a car wash as you’re gassing up, and they might offer you a discount if you buy a certain, you know, gallon minimum. So I think in respect to the car wash, that’s where the draw is going to be. It’s basically an ancillary amenity that the station can offer to continue to entice people to, you know, shop and gas there. MR. LAPPER-That was it for the traffic comments, then, Four, Five, Six, Dan said we’ve completed, and then Seven was asking about that, the area the neighbor had talked about as a stream, and we had said that we had checked with DEC and that it was not a stream. It was just a little drainage swale, and he asked us to provide correspondence from DEC, and we do have that now. Jim can address that. MR. FORD-Did we skip over Six, Jon? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. LAPPER-Six he said completed. MR. FORD-Test holes and that type of thing. MR. SECOR-Yes, it’s on the prints that were re-submitted. Jim Secor. We had contacted DEC and aerial photographs and calculations for the drainage areas, and we’ve got correspondence back from them that we can give to Staff, I guess, pertaining to their agreement that it’s a drainage area and it’s not a stream. This is from R-5 DEP, came to my office, one of my other engineers in the office. MR. LAPPER-Region Five, Department of Early Permitting, DEC. MR. SECOR-Yes, there would be no permit required from New York State DEC to cross this drainage channel. It is not classified as a stream or wetland, and as far as the next one, Item Eight, Kirk, you can jump in if I say this out of context, we’re looking at a three and a half foot high, or the highest point of that retaining wall is like three and a half feet. What we propose is to leave it open to the contract, we specified Ready Rock. They may want to change it, but we don’t have a problem if it’s a condition of the permit that a stamped PE design be submitted to the Town as part of the construction package. It’s not a problem. MR. MOORE-Item Ten, the comment from Mr. Ryan was we had shown some additional directional arrows because his prior comments said that there might be confusion in the back of how to get out of the back so we added some arrows showing that there’s basically two bypass lanes out of the back of the site. Now he’s not clear on why we added that, and I’m not clear on why he’s asking that because he asked us to do it. So the other question was the two lanes between the car wash and the convenience store, his primary exit from the rear of the facility, that’s true, it is. The two lanes indicated should be a minimum of 10 feet to 12 feet wide, currently two lanes are shown at 18 feet long for 9 feet while driving. One of the other things our firm does is banks. A lot of drive thru banks, and it’s not uncommon although we don’t always do this. If we have the space, we try to use a 10 foot drive thru lane, but 9 foot drive thru lanes, and I’ve even seen 8 foot 6 drive thru lanes, which are a bit narrow, but nine feet is certainly adequate in there, for a total of 18 feet. I think a lot of you have probably seen 16 foot wide driveways where you park two cars next to each other. We think that’s adequate. However, we do have room in there to add another two feet and bump that up to 20 feet if you would like. We have planters on both sides of the building that I would personally like to see be as big as they could be, but from my professional perspective, I think the 18 foot wide aisle is adequate. I don’t think it’s going to be very often that two cars are going to be passing each other in that short distance between the buildings, and again, personally I’d rather see the green space, but we’re certainly open to whatever the Board’s pleasure is. MR. HUNSINGER-The drive thru window’s on the back. It’s not on the side. So it’s not like there would be a car sitting there at the drive thru window while another car was trying to go around it. MR. MOORE-Right. That’s correct. It would be very unusual, I think, to see two cars side by side in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WIRSTEAD-I kind of briefly touched on it earlier when I was up at the Board, but the vacuum area is at the furthest eastern extent of the southern property area, where there’s a curbed area, some landscaping and a light pole. The southern extension, this colored site plan illustrates this area here is where the vacuum pump is on the southern end, and here is the curbed island for the exit of the car wash, and this area right here, there’s actually a dashed line indicated there. I don’t know that it was, I believe it’s the concrete area, but essentially that would be a location where a vehicle would sit. Vehicles coming around the back side of the car wash obviously have the choice of exiting through between the convenience store and the car wash, but they also have the ability to exit through on the south side of the car wash. If there is a vehicle stopped there vacuuming, there’s room enough to go between that vehicle and the exit at the car wash to maneuver around them, before either circulating across the front of the site or exiting out the southern driveway. MR. FORD-Have you considered adding a body shop? MR. WIRSTEAD-Not that I’m aware of. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SECOR-Jim Secor, again. You’re right. That was a mistake on our part, and it should be a silt fence, modify that. I’m sorry, Number 14. Fifteen, Sixteen, those were completed, Seventeen completed. Number 18, it’s on our Drawing C-103, we’ve indicated with a bullet note the diameter of the roof leader drains for the canopy is six inches. That same symbol is also the same symbol we used in the back of the building for the roof leader. We didn’t put a bullet back there. That was just a reference that that line weight was a six inch diameter pipe. So the diameter of the roof drains in the back are the same as the canopy ones. It was indicated in the pre-ap, but he must have misunderstood it. So they are both six inches. We’ve got, I’ll give this to the Staff as well, we’ve added a detail sheet on that small berm on that section to the south of the property. It’s six inches high. We’ve specified it to also be stabilized with grass matting fabric, and also we’ve indicated a negative slope away from that, and the pavement approximately two to three feet to get the water to drain toward that catch basin for proper retrieval. MR. LAPPER-And the rest of the comments were completed. So that’s our response at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions from the Board. I know one of the questions that I have for the Board, actually, is to get people’s opinion on the building design. I think the 3-D rendering really helped a lot. I think that really provides a better perspective of what it was you’re proposing to do. MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, I didn’t see any difference between the one you submitted in December and the latest one. If you could explain to me what the differences are, because I’m not good at architecture. MR. MOORE-Kirk Moore, BMA Architects. I remembered that, Tom. As I pointed out earlier, this is the car wash elevation, the east elevation which is on the bottom right hand corner of the screen as you can see is a flat roof, and if you look at the rendering, it now has a gable end roof that’s facing Route 9. We’ve also made that front façade brick on the car wash, instead of split face block, and added some horizontal banding as well as some cast concrete medallions to just give it a little bit more articulation on the car wash. On the convenience store, the original application had a much smaller and lower sloped gable just over the front entrance. We’ve increased the slope of that and the height and also made it a gabled roof that extends back over to the rear of the building. This original application, the front façade, that was simply a parapet. It was an eight inch thick wall, and that was all. On the rendering you can see there’s actually a copper roof, gable roof that’s approximately six feet deep, extending towards the back of the building, and again, we’ve added a split or a chisel faced masonry base to the building where the cap is about two feet high, and the brick veneer extends above that, and we’ve changed the horizontal banding as well as added some plaster medallions over the front entrance to give it a little more articulation. Does that answer your question? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, this is what I had for the December submission. I think it was December. MR. WIRSTEAD-That’s correct. Okay. I was thinking you were talking about the original application, and the rendering reflects that December submission. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So you were here in December, correct? MR. WIRSTEAD-We responded to you in December, after our December hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So that’s why. Okay. MR. WIRSTEAD-That’s why I was confused, because what we presented you was our original application, which you gave us comments on. We resubmitted at the end of December with that elevation you just showed me, and then in February we gave you the rendering of that elevation. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments from other members on the building design? MR. SEGULJIC-I would still say, though, we were looking for more of the appearance of the building submitted in the Staff Notes in the December meeting, which this doesn’t even resemble closely. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. WIRSTEAD-They’re Short Stop convenience store. We’re a Smart Shop. It’s a totally different owner, and we want our own identity. So I guess that’s. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the look we were looking for. MR. WIRSTEAD-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s what I wanted to bring it up, to see if people feel this design goes far enough. MR. FORD-What are you looking for that that doesn’t provide, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-There was the drawing submitted in our Staff Notes from last meeting. It had more of an Adirondack feel to it. MR. LAPPER-I’m thinking about the Cumberland Farms that this Board just approved at Exit 18 and at Ridge and Quaker, and I think what we’re proposing here is much fancier than that. So I’m sort of at a loss to understand why we’d be treated differently than other applications. MR. SEGULJIC-Because we take it application by application. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have that handy, Tom? I saw it earlier tonight. MRS. BRUNO-In answer to your question, Mr. Lapper, this is a different section of Town. It is our more northern area, as I’m sure you’re aware, which, as we are looking at a new Comprehensive Plan with the Town, we’ve stated, and a number of people have stated from the public, that the northern area should have more of an Adirondack look. This certainly has more detailing to it. It seems much more of an industrialized look to me, a combination of an industrialized look along with some components of an Adirondack, again, I’m not sure that it’s enough of a component. I think it is a nice looking building. It actually reminds me, perhaps you were the architects on this particular building, in Woodstock, Vermont, that’s a growing through town on the eastern most side where the new road changes dramatically. Is that one of your buildings? MR. MOORE-Yes, that’s actually an old mill building that was converted. I think it’s a Maple fields, the one you’re talking about. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. MOORE-It’s a nice building. MRS. BRUNO-It is a nice building. MR. MOORE-And it’s got that old mill look to it. What we’re trying to do is come up with a blend on this particular design with a brick façade and picking up some of the imagery of Adirondack style in the bracketing, the copper standing seem roof, the medallions have an Adirondack kind of symbolism to them. The other thing, you know, I think I pointed this out in our hearing in December is, one of the advantages of having a general flat roof building is we can put all the equipment on the roof and hide it. That’s a big advantage. The other thing then, and a serious design flaw in the particular example that you’re talking about in Manchester is all the snow gets dumps right on the front sidewalk which is a real problem where you have customers coming and constantly in and out and trying to maintain it and keeping it from being a slip and fall hazard, and that’s an issue of concern from my perspective, as a designer, on commercial buildings, because it’s not a house where you have two or three trips in and out a day. You can literally have 100 people in and out a day. So we try to design our buildings to shed the snow away from the front areas of the building for that reason. Also, in conjunction, in this particular design is the aesthetic they’re trying to accomplish on the inside of the building, which is more of an open framing system and very light feeling in the inside, which is not conducive to our gable trussed roof building like you would normally see in an Adirondack house. This is a commercial building, and we’re trying to find that blend and balance if you’ll have it. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. FORD-So of these two that you have submitted, you feel that this is more Adirondack designed than this one? MR. MOORE-Well, I didn’t submit that photograph, Number One, or we didn’t, on behalf of the client. I think that came from Staff. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. MOORE-Secondly, I’m very familiar with that building, because I live there, and I’ve developed, or been part of the development of all the sites around it. That has not been a great success story. It’s had a very difficult time surviving, Number One. Number Two, it looks like a house and not a commercial building. So, does it look more Adirondacky, yes, but the fact is Adirondack style is more conducive for residential buildings than commercial buildings. So, from an architect’s perspective, it’s a little bit challenging to try to make commercial buildings look Adirondack. You can do it, and there are examples of it along the strip there. MR. FORD-Including The Great Escape. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, and the Log Jam restaurant. I guess that’s what we’re asking you to accomplish. MR. MOORE-And I don’t want to get into a crit of the architecture along Route 9 and what Adirondack place really should be, but I think that we’re trying to provide a design that meets the needs of our client and also is in the context of the area that the building’s going in, and I think it’s important to keep in mind what’s on the site right now. Certainly I think you all would agree this is going to be a betterment to what’s there today, architecturally. MR. SEGULJIC-And we haven’t seen the design for the canopy as of yet, though, that we requested last time. MR. MOORE-I believe we did submit the canopy drawings in the December package, as th well as the February 14 package, and the rendering also shows the canopy. I think the gas canopy is actually shown on an 11 by 17 drawing that was in the packet that was th submitted on December 14, I believe. MRS. STEFFAN-I didn’t like that rendering because it was all red. I just didn’t like it. Now there’s no lighting underneath. There are lights at each gas pump, but there’s no lighting around the edges of the canopy, correct? There’s a name for it, and I don’t know. MR. WIRSTEAD-Internally illuminated band around the perimeter of the canopy? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there’s no illumination? Okay. MR. WIRSTEAD-No, only the sign itself, the Exxon sign, correct, right. There is lighting under the canopy that’s shown on the site plan, and is part of our photometric plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and it shines down on the gas pumps. MR. WIRSTEAD-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I apologize, but I don’t see it anywhere, the canopy. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s called out on the last page. Apparently I misplaced it. So the lighting on the canopy is proposed to be recessed? MR. WIRSTEAD-They are surface mounted semi-recessed fixtures with an edge band so that the side of the fixture does not illuminate. It’s a direct cut off fixture that only directs light down and not horizontally. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-And did you reduce the height of the sign? That was something that we talked about a little bit the last time you were here. The original proposal I think was a 25 foot sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. WIRSTEAD-I don’t believe we did, Mr. Chairman. I do recall reducing the height of the light poles. Jon, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t think we had a discussion about the sign because that was already granted by variance, but I could be wrong about that. MR. LAPPER-What do you recall, Chris? MRS. STEFFAN-We had just talked about the Rite Aid project and we had decided we liked the 20 foot sign. MR. WIRSTEAD-The 12/14 drawing is 25 feet tall. MR. HUNSINGER-And there was no new submission. Any other comments or questions from the Board? We did table the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. VANCE COHEN MR. COHEN-Hi. My name’s Vance Cohen. We have the southern property right next to where the proposed gas station is going in. I still have some concerns and reservations about some of the proposed part of the plans. I guess starting off with one of my major concerns would be the layout of where the gas pumps are positioned, the manner that they run alongside the road. I still feel that boats and RV’s and larger vehicles, you know, Boats By George, for example, is across the street. They have a 24 foot truck that hauls these 30 plus foot boats to get gas right here in the outlets. I don’t believe any of his trucks or boats could pull in or out of here in a manner that would allow other vehicles to still have flow of the parking lot without blocking anything. The positioning of these pumps are a concern. There’s the northern most pump which I believe blocks part of the entrance, and should there be one vehicle, whether it’s a boat or just a truck or a car positioned getting gas, you’re looking at other vehicles pulling in right behind them, which are sort of directed towards the rear of the property if they want to get to the drive thru or to the car wash. I really feel that pump right there is some sort of a driving hazard. Everybody pulls in. If they’re looking at pulling in vehicles from the north, that are traveling south, that’s going to be your major entrance to the site, and that pump right there is a real big concern, as far as traffic flow. We all know that it’s during the peak daytime hours, which is the peak hours of the outlet travel corridor, it’s bumper to bumper, and so you’re going to have cars pulling in, cars trying to pull out, and I see this, you get two cars trying to pull out, one car trying to pull in to get gas here, it just doesn’t seem like it’s going to work. There is the south exit, which some of the vehicles will use, if they’re going south. Some of the vehicles will be going north as well. So that is part of my concern. I had felt that it would have been a better solution to maybe lose one of the pumps, maybe double up, similar to Mobil’s set up or Sunoco, which are both right there in the outlets, which both have ease pulling in to their driveways. A boat and a truck being towed by a boat could pull up and get gas at both the front pump and the back pump, you know, speeding up their getting gas process, perhaps, but more so it would eliminate any traffic jams behind them. I understand there’s some concerns about people trying to parallel park to get into those particular setups. It seems to work for the other gas stations. If somebody needs to get around, obviously they could travel around the building here, except there’s only one way to get to the back of the building, and it appears that the only exits are on the south side, and they’re all one way, which are bringing it towards the road. You can only exit one way, which brings me to another concern, which is that vacuum pump on that south end of the property, which obviously if somebody’s getting gas, or I mean cleaning their vehicles there, you know, whether they’re going to pull in straight, I don’t know. They’re going to have to pull in from the back side, unless it’s labeled, I don’t know that that would work. It will create an exiting hazard from the property, for larger vehicles that are going to wind up going towards the rear of the property. I had previously mentioned perhaps doing something other than the gas station, or the car wash part right there, and moving the gas station back, tweaking the gas pump, so that it would allow the flow better, and if they’re looking to have parking in the front of the building, which is acceptable, you want to have that sort of access, they might have to tweak the position of the building. The parking along Route 9, you know, if that’s fine with the Town, you know, that’s obviously not a real big issue. I can see some boats and RV’s taking up a few parking spaces. We are at the gateways of the Adirondacks here. There are, within a couple of miles of this gas station, at least that I can count four or maybe five RV parks. The closest one, which is about a mile away, 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) they have over 400 campsites. I’m not sure of their weekly turnover rate, but I see every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, all the RV’s, campers and trucks coming right down Exit 20, hauling right to all the campsites in the area, and come Sunday and Monday, they’re heading south again, and all those folks who burnt through all their fuels, I imagine, are going to be stopping at one of the two gas stations on that side of the road, which, being this is the first one, I would imagine they would try and pull in to this one, and the positioning, I just don’t see that it’s working. They’re trying to cram everything right up towards the front of the property, and the flow is just, I see that as being a major problem here. Now, they’re saying that, you know, some of the boats and trucks can just park in the back. I guess they’re suggesting that they just park in any spot they choose, and not a designated parking area, because I don’t see any for a larger vehicle, and considering that we have so many larger vehicles in this area, I think that should be considered. The vacuum pump on the northern side, Bill Didio who owns the pizzeria right there had to run and close up shop. I don’t know if he’ll be back in time to make his opinions known. He had expressed an opinion to me that that vacuum pump right there is right next to where his picnic tables are on that south side of his building, and that he feels that that would be some sort of a nuisance, while those vacuums are humming and his folks are trying to eat a meal. I’d leave that to him to really say one way or the other. As far as the reserved parking lot in the back, if the square footage of this business requires that amount of parking space, I would say that I would prefer to see some sort of additional parking back there, and I know that the neighbor to the north had expressed this concern about the interconnect. He likes it, and wants to see it put in in a proper way, which obviously they’re willing to do, in considering taking away some of this bank, I guess that’s on the northern side of that property, and making that nice. He’s good with that. I think that it’s probably going to be a necessary asset to the property to have that additional parking. I don’t know if losing the car wash would require them to have that additional parking, because of square footage or, you know, all the rules. I’m not real sure about that, but I think that it would definitely be an asset. A lot of folks in this neighborhood park at one location, walk to another location. I see people parking down at Basketville’s old, where Basketville was, or the malls across the street and coming over, we have a crosswalk right across the street from where this gas station is, which will allow folks to come here. They generally walk up to Frank’s for food. I can see them doing the same over here. I don’t know that people are going to be parking here and walking to the other stores, but I see a lot of people who park and walk in this neighborhood. I know a gas station’s not a spot to park and hang out, but I think that that should be part of the consideration as well, that rear parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. COHEN-I think that pretty much sums up some of my concerns, for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anyone else have comments or questions? Okay. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Were there any written comments, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-At any time during your layout here, was any consideration given to placing the car wash more toward the back, rather than right up and parallel to the convenience store? MR. MOORE-Yes, we’d rather not do a car wash. It would not make sense to do a car wash in the back of the building. They’re not visible from the road, and they just, they don’t make a return on the investment, based on the experience. MR. FORD-I think the southernmost vacuum station is a safety hazard. MR. MOORE-I think that’s something that our client would be willing to relocate perhaps to the rear of the site, if that’s something that’s important to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking the same thing. I don’t know how other members feel. I don’t think it would be a problem for cars, but I think just the potential to create a bottleneck there, and create some traffic conflicts. Maybe there’s a spot. MR. LAPPER-Frank just pointed out that they can both go in the rear. So if that was an issue with the picnic tables, we can relocate the northern one as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Just overall I think you’re trying to do too much with the site, and I think you’re, the depictions provided to us prove to me that you’re going to have a lot of conflicts on this site. MR. UNDERWOOD-I understand that that’s your feeling, Tom, but in terms of the amount of square feet that we have, what’s going on, I think that we’ve shown with engineering studies that there is plenty of room for cars to maneuver, that we can fit the car wash and the convenience store comfortably on the site, and that all manners of trucks and cars with trailers can fit on the site, but I think that you’re trying to impose an unfair standard. If somebody’s got a really oversized vehicle, there’s a truck stop on Route 149 in Fort Ann on one side of the station, and there’s a truck stop at Exit 16. So if you really need a truck stop, you go to a truck stop, but we’ve shown that this site can accommodate trucks and motor homes on the site. Just because there’s campgrounds next door nearby doesn’t mean it’s going to be inundated, and if you’re driving a motor home, you know the time of day to go when it’s not crowded or that you’re going to have to pull off and wait. So our position is that this site can certainly accommodate them, and that it’s an unfair standard for this to be viewed as a truck stop. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think anyone said it’s a truck stop. What I’m asking you to do is look at reconfiguration of your pumps to allow a better flow. Because as demonstrated, a truck with a trailer can’t come on site if a car is parked in Aisle One, Two, or Three. MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead, Creighton Manning. In some of the figures that we’ve demonstrated that there are opportunities for a truck and trailer to come on site, you know, when there are cars, you know, parked using those pumps. It’s not a long duration situation where cars are parked there for 15 minutes at a pump as people gas up, go inside and, you know, eat their sandwiches and so forth. It is a high turnover type of situation where the vehicles are parked there for, five, seven, eight minutes when they gas up, and then they pay for their purchases and leave. If you do have a car at every pump, then anybody else coming in, whether it be a tractor trailer, an RV, a truck with a boat trailer, they’re going to have to wait until a free spot opens up. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, can a truck with a trailer go through the second bay? th MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes. In our December 14 submission, we demonstrated that there is the ability for a truck with a trailer to exit through the bays in between the center of the canopy. That’s Figure One, and there’s a green turning movement diagram and also a red one. MR. HUNSINGER-You had made a comment earlier that this site is actually larger than some of the other sites that you had developed. Are any of those sites nearby? MR. MOORE-Kirk Moore, architect. MR. HUNSINGER-Because one of my thoughts is, I’m sensing we’re going to table this application this evening, because there’s some engineering comments, and some other things to look at. We talked about re-locating the vacuum stations. I guess my thought process is, you know, it’s one thing to look at this one paper, but it’s another thing if you can say, well, gee, there’s a gas station right here, you know, that is very similar in layout to this one. MR. LAPPER-Anybody going to Killington in the next week? There’s one when you come down by the Home Depot. There’s a Mobil with a Dunkin Donuts inside. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, not necessarily a gas station with a Dunkin Donuts in it, but I mean a similar layout that we could observe. FRANK TROMBETTA MR. TROMBETTA-Well, I think it would be good for you to see the Dunkin Donuts, because, you know, if there’s another food vendor in here, which we’re not even sure if that’s really going to materialize, but they have a number of installations with Dunkin Donuts, convenience store, gas pump configurations. There’s one in Fairhaven, Smart Shop store. There is one in West Rutland on West Street. There is also what we call Park Street, which is on North Main Street. There’s actually probably a half a dozen of them in Rutland. Many of them have similar pump configurations, and you’ll find most of the sites are much more constricted than this site. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. LAPPER-Would you like to see photographs? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, is there any other gas station maybe in Town that would have similar dimensions as to what you’re looking at? MR. TROMBETTA-In Queensbury? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Because one of the things we did on site visits a couple of months ago is looked at the two other gas stations that are right there in that corridor, and at that point we were kind of looking at parking spaces, because that was one of the big concerns in the beginning, to see how those parking lots were laid out, and whether or not they were striped and that kind of thing. So, I mean, and you don’t need to give me the answer tonight, either, but, you know, maybe with your submission materials. If there’s some other, I’m just trying to think of another way that you could present this that would give us a better sense and visual feel for this project. MR. TROMBETTA-Certainly. I think we’d be happy to give you some other sites to look at that are in the immediate area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. WIRSTEAD-One of the things I just wanted to comment about, or just remind you that we’ve submitted a lot of turning diagrams on this project, and I can understand why there’s some confusion, Tom, because there’ve been so many of them, and since December I don’t know how many we’ve submitted in total, but I think we’ve addressed almost every scenario in some way, from RV’s pulling boats to trucks pulling boats, to semi tractors, to cars. So, you know, as Jon said earlier, I think that we have more than adequately addressed the most common scenarios. There will always be an exception, and there has to be some dependence put on the sensibility of a driver. I mean, no matter what you do, you have people that crash in the middle of huge parking lots somehow. It happens. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Did you have a comment you wanted to make, Tom? I’m sorry. MR. SEGULJIC-Just quickly. You said you showed a vehicle going through the middle bay in your December submission? MR. WIRSTEAD-Ken Wirstead, Creighton Manning. In the December addition, we had somebody going through, it would be the third open area to the south, and also the first open area to the south, and if your diagram’s black and white, it’s basically green and red on the color ones, and I can provide you with color copies of that. In addition, in our February submission, we showed a couple of other locations where the vehicles were going through, and on our diagrams tonight we actually had more scenarios shown, but it became so cluttered that it was difficult to read and see what vehicles were traveling through there. So we actually had to take some of them off just to be able to clarify and present a clearer picture. MR. SEGULJIC-So what you’re saying is a truck with a trailer can fit through every bay? MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes, I believe so. MR. SEGULJIC-A truck with a trailer can fit through every bay? MR. WIRSTEAD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’d like to have that depicted to make me comfortable. MR. WIRSTEAD-Certainly, we can do that. MR. FORD-Could we, at the risk of prolonging this, go back to your comment, what I asked about the possibility of having the car wash in the rear or some place configured other than where it is now. You indicated you’ve got experience where that is not a good return on the investor’s dollar? MR. WIRSTEAD-That’s correct. MR. FORD-Because I see that in a great many places. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. WIRSTEAD-A car wash in the rear? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. WIRSTEAD-Well, our experience is they’re not very successful, and, you know, we work with consultants on car washes all the time, and, you know, from the client’s perspective and from the consultants I’ve worked with, it needs the visibility along the front road for it to be successful. MR. FORD-So signage doesn’t work? MR. WIRSTEAD-Every site is different, but the rule of thumb, and certainly we’ve had people look at this site specifically, that the consensus was it needs visibility. We actually had a two bay car wash in the original scheme. We cut it back to a one bay because we felt it was getting too congested. We could fit it on there, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m glad you didn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have a tabling motion? I know you’ve been working on it. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t know if it includes everything we’ve talked about. I mean, we’ve been all over the map with it. To submit a retaining wall design by a licensed professional engineer, Vision Engineering comments, sign height not to exceed 20 feet. We talked about a lot of stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Did everyone hear the conditions? MR. LAPPER-We weren’t proposing to design the retaining wall now. That would be a building permit issue, like a condition. MRS. STEFFAN-So that doesn’t affect? MR. LAPPER-Well, we’d hope you would look at it as a building permit issue. Just to not have to go to the expense of designing it now. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-That’s certainly an acceptable condition to us. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anything else? MR. FORD-How complicated would it be to re-visit the design issue from the Adirondack perspective? MR. MOORE-Well, I’ll let my client correct me if I’m wrong, but I think our position’s pretty firm on the aesthetic, that that’s the desired aesthetic we would like for the building, and we’ve spent a considerable amount of time and energy on the design. I think we went back and re-visited, after the December hearing, to try to come up with some compromises, without turning the design into what I would call a platypus, which is kind of a joke, but, you know, it can get to where it just becomes not a very good piece of architecture, if you try sticking things on it that really don’t belong on it, and I think our view is that doing an Adirondack cabin convenience store is not appropriate. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe you’re a good architect. MR. MOORE-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-And I believe you can do something for us. MR. MOORE-Well, part of being a good architect is meeting my client’s needs. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, maybe you should talk to your client. MR. MOORE-Well, we’ve talked about it considerably, and, I think, you know, there are no design guidelines in this district presently. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. MOORE-I can appreciate your comments and your desire to try to get something that fits in the context of that area, and I am sensitive to that, but I think there has to be some considerations of client’s program as well, and I think we’ve done a good job of trying to find that balance and come up with an attractive building that meets both of those standards. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would like to see another design. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the rest of the Board feel? MRS. BRUNO-I’m actually comfortable with the design as it is. I think I agree with it, in terms of if you were to try to add too much of the wood look, that’s not appropriate for right here. I think you’re going to find that, and I’m thinking specifically because we talked about the building in Woodstock which I understand this architect didn’t design, but it has a similar feel. It’s a slightly refreshing look for around here. I put in my notes, industrialized Adirondack. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s good. I like that. MRS. BRUNO-You can’t really have the real deep peaks because of the issue of the snow and the ice and I actually was at that particular gas station a few years ago that, it’s in our notes, and it was uncomfortable, not only was it snowing, but that was a smaller site, and it was parallel to the road, and it just wasn’t conducive to being a customer there. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve, how do you feel? MR. TRAVER-I guess generally I’m also satisfied with the design. I think it meets the needs. It’s certainly an improvement over what’s there, and I think that the improvements that they’ve made over the original design submission, although not enormous, have certainly, I think, attempted to address our concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m okay with it. I like the fact that there are bricks and that the design will continue to look that way. It’s not going to need, you know, painting or refurbishing or those kinds of things. We talked about color changes on the light poles. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing that I wanted to point out in the rendering, we talked about the sign. In the rendering, according to the drawings that were submitted last time, the canopy is supposed to be about 13 and a half feet, something like that, and the sign looked to be about the same height, but in the drawings that we have, the sign is 25 feet tall, which is a little high for us. Our preferred sign height is 20 feet. So we would put that as a condition. So we’d want that at 20 feet, but the rendering looks like it’s the same height as the canopy, but it’s not, according to the drawing. MR. MOORE-I think the rendering does depict it a little lower. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It actually looks very nice low like that, but you probably want it taller than that. So 20 feet would be our preference. MR. TRAVER-Actually, if you look at the sign relative to the light pole and the canopy relative to the light pole, that’s about 20 feet. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the light posts, in the minutes of our last meeting, we asked for the light posts to be taken down to 20 feet. So those light posts are denoted higher than what we talked about in the minutes of our last meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to move forward here? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m fine with this design, too, as long as you can put all these trees here, that you have on your drawing. I think that’s what’s biasing a lot of people’s opinions because those trees aren’t there. MR. MOORE-Well, I can’t speak for the trees that are shown off site, but the trees that are on site are accurate to the landscaping plan we’ve submitted. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I question the trees along the northern property line behind the building. MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re really not there. MR. MOORE-Yes. We did not have a photograph to drop that into. We have the ability to actually drop that rendering into a photograph, an actual photograph of the site, but we did not do that in this case, so those are faked in. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MOORE-The background trees are faked in. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s really not what it looked like. MR. MOORE-Well, the building and site, that’s what it looks like, the immediate building and site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Just curious, what program did you use? MR. MOORE-3-D Vis. MRS. BRUNO-Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Are we ready? MRS. STEFFAN-I think so. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 40-2006 M.T. ASSOCIATES, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This should be tabled to the April 24 th meeting, with a submission deadline of Friday, April 6, with the following outstanding items. 1.The applicant must address the Vision Engineering comments. 2.Change the sign height, not to exceed 20 feet on the road signage. 3.To move the vacuum stations to the back of the property. 4.To address the Staff Note comments. 5.To provide a list of comparable locations for site visits. 6.To provide a diagram showing truck with trailer movement under the gas canopies. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-I was going to say, showing that a truck with a trailer can go through every bay that’s there, because I think it’s only limited, to go through one or two of them, but not all of them, and I’m really concerned that the site’s going to become jammed up real quick because people with snowmobiles have a tendency to travel in packs. MRS. STEFFAN-But there’s 35 feet on, if you look at the drawing, there’s 35 feet on each lane, on either side of those. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s only maybe two that they haven’t shown. MR. LAPPER-We’ll show it. MR. FORD-There’s another point that was made, and that is it wouldn’t be difficult to drop that it in on the present site and show it the way it will look on the present site. I would like to see that. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. MOORE-I may have understated that. MR. HUNSINGER-Understated the ease? MR. MOORE-We have the technology, and, yes, we can do it, but at considerable expense to our client. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOORE-I mean, the client has already invested $2500 in that rendering to help convey the design. MR. FORD-It’s not an accurate depiction. MR. MOORE-It’s a very accurate depiction. Everything on the site itself is very accurate. All that you’re seeing that’s faked in is the background, the trees in the background of the site itself, off site. Topographically, landscaping wise, it is exactly what you are seeing on the site plan, in terms of elevation, grades and everything else. That’s very accurately depicted. The problem with dropping it into a photograph right now is we only have a winter photograph. So you’re not going to see, I mean. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what it would look like in the wintertime. MR. MOORE-Well, I just think it’s over-burdensome on the applicant. Honestly. I mean, it’s going to be a couple of thousand dollars worth of effort to do that. MRS. STEFFAN-And at the same time, I mean, we know there’s a pizzeria next door. We know what the buffers are between the properties, and so, you know, I think it’s reasonable to visualize that. MR. HUNSINGER-So we have a motion. Do we have a second? MRS. STEFFAN-I just wanted to add one, as Tom Seguljic recommended, if we could have a diagram showing truck with trailer movement under the gas canopies. We’ll add that as a condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And that’s the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there a second? MRS. BRUNO-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-See you in a month. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6.786 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 1.6 AND 5.1 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE SP 1-2006 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.786 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55, 59 SECTION A-183 BILL PALADINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HC-INT. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. DEMOLISH EXISTING TELEPHONE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 11,153 SQ. FT. RITE AID PHARMACY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW RETAIL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 48-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/8/06 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 179-4-020 BILL PALADINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-The floor is yours. MR. PALADINO-Bill Paladino, Ellicot Development. Here to speak on behalf of the applicant about the Rite Aid project that’s been proposed. I think at this point we’ve addressed all of the Planning Board’s comments and all Staff’s comments. I believe th Staff is satisfied with our latest letter dated February 14 regarding the last tabling motions that were made, and as I said, I think we’ve addressed all the questions to date, and I guess at this point we’d like to know the feeling of the Board, and if there is any further questions or concerns regarding our project. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the first question I have is for Staff. Susan, it said in the Staff minutes that you would verify that the subdivision sign was posted. Do you have a picture of it? Okay. Great. Okay. I’ll open up the item for discussion from the Board. Does anyone have any questions or comments? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we got the letter from Roberts Environmental, and I guess during construction I think that there should just be some orange tape put up around the wetlands, just to delineate those in our construction item. We know they’re there, but if they’re not at least marked off then they can get abused during construction. So that’s just an item that I thought would be appropriate. The other thing I noticed, we’ve talked about no sign, or no reader boards, and on the plan that I looked at, it said, on Drawing RTA 49034-07, it talked about lighting reader board. MR. PALADINO-No, I believe that’s the monument sign. MRS. STEFFAN-This one? MR. PALADINO-Correct. Yes, that’s the one on Lafayette. I’m sorry I didn’t look through this with a fine tooth comb, but if it did say retain the reader board, the area on the bottom was meant for Mr. Canale’s other sign. It will not be a reader board. On this one, on Lafayette we discussed having the Rite Aid sign and an additional sign for Mr. Canale in the future for his use over there. It will not be a reader board. MR. FORD-So there will be none on site? MR. PALADINO-None on site. No, as agreed to previously. MRS. STEFFAN-Sorry to be a nudge on this one. MR. FORD-I want to not see that either. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that one of those plastic things? MR. PALADINO-That just goes up during construction, to let people know, because we get inundated with calls, usually when these stores are going up, about people wanting jobs, and this is just up during construction. It will be on a fence, probably in front, just saying the Rite Aid is coming, so people know what it is, and that so we don’t get calls, especially being that, you know, people just don’t know where to call. They’ll start calling my office. They’ll start calling you. They’ll call everybody. They call whoever they can. Because the engineer will have a sign up there with their number. We’ll have our sign up. Typically our contractor will somewhere, and they start calling everybody. So, we do really ask if we can have it, because it really is helpful, and it will minimize a lot of aggravation on all our parts. MR. FORD-I object to it. I sat on the Zoning Board of Appeals, and we addressed issues like this before, in years past, and it might eliminate a few phone calls, but I don’t think that’s the kind of advertising we need to be doing. MR. TRAVER-How long would you envision the sign would need to be up? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. PALADINO-It would just be up from the, once we break ground and started construction, until the store opens. MR. FORD-Which will be how long? MR. PALADINO-Roughly five months. Actually, seven months. Five months at completion of construction, and then a couple of months to fix your merchandise in the store, and then open for business. If you’d like to put a time limit on it, near the end, we’re more than willing to look at that, too. MR. TRAVER-Well, I’m just wondering, once you have the structure up, and you begin to put features on the building that identify it, you won’t really need the sign. I mean, granted you may still have the phone call problem. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. TRAVER-But at least to let people know what’s coming. Once what’s coming begins to arrive, you really don’t need that sign anymore. So that, maybe we could address both issues by agreeing on some kind of, in breaking ground to the first wall going up, or something. I don’t know. How do you feel about that, Tom? MR. FORD-How many employees do you anticipate? MR. PALADINO-At the end of the day, between 20 and 30 full and part-time. MR. FORD-I don’t think you need five months to recruit. MR. PALADINO-Well, it’s the inundation of calls. It’s not really the recruitment of it. They want to be customer friendly. They look to hire from the area, and therefore the sign helps. We’ll get calls from start to finish, until it’s open and then beyond when it’s open, when people actually walk into the store. It’s not that they’ll just hire the first 30 people and they don’t want to answer the calls. They do have other stores in the area, being Lake George, here, Warrensburg, Glens Falls. So they want to be accommodating. Some may call this store. They might say, well, where do you live? Maybe you go down to that store, things of that nature. They try and be a good neighbor in each area that they’re in, and hire from the area. So that’s one of the reasons for it. MR. FORD-I’ve had my say. MR. PALADINO-Yes, and for any store they may take up to a couple hundred applications for them, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Will this store being joining the Chamber of Commerce locally? MR. PALADINO-I’m not sure if they do in different areas. I’ve never had the question asked. MRS. STEFFAN-The reason I ask, I’m not promoting the Chamber, but they have something called the job zone, Saratoga Chamber has it as well, and it’s electronic employment board, and so if you’re a member of the Chamber, you can actually post on line advertising, and it does get a fairly good review. MR. PALADINO-I’ll bring that up to them. MRS. BRUNO-While we’re on the topic of signs, I’m just curious. I was looking through my notes here to find a picture of your proposed elevations, and I know we’ve talked about it before, but the lettering on the building, do you know, comparatively what size they are, compared to the lettering that went up in Lake George? When those letters went up, they just looked, I know the building’s larger up there, but the letters just looked overwhelming. MR. PALADINO-Yes, I believe they’re the same size. MRS. BRUNO-They are the same size? And that’s a larger building. MR. PALADINO-Well, the building’s the same, it’s bigger, but the scale’s the same. The scale of this building is the same scale as that building, even though that is a longer building. It’s 10 feet, that building would be 10 feet longer, or 10 feet wider, actually 9 feet wider and 20 feet longer. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. TRAVER-So proportionally the letters will be larger. They’re the same size. MR. PALADINO-No, the letters will stay the same, because proportionally the whole front of the store will still be, in terms of height and depth, you know, the whole front of the store is primarily, it’s the same size as the store in Lake George. So the letters will be the same size proportionally to what the front of that store is going to look like. MRS. BRUNO-Well, regardless, they’re too large on that building in Lake George. They’re shocking, perhaps because it’s a lighter building, but the building that you’re proposing, and we’ve already agreed on the colors, really isn’t that much darker. I think we need to re-visit that. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, or if you’re familiar with the building I’m talking about up on Route 9 and Lake George. MR. SEGULJIC-I would agree with that. That jumps right out at you. It’s too much. MR. HUNSINGER-I haven’t been by it. MR. FORD-I agree with you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re concerned that the building’s too dark? MRS. BRUNO-No, no, no. That the lettering on the building, the signage that’s on the building that says Rite Aid, it’s just, it seems very large, especially because it’s red. It’s just a bit overwhelming. What was the color that we ended up okaying? MR. PALADINO-It was like a beige. MRS. BRUNO-So it is quite close to the one up there. MR. PALADINO-No, this will be darker, this store here. MRS. BRUNO-Will the lettering be blue? Because I think it’s red up there? MR. PALADINO-Yes, the lettering changes based on the look of the store, and it’s currently been changing slightly as we develop these new stores. Rite Aid has a new signage package that’s come out. If you see the sign up there in Lake George, it’s different than what we first proposed way back when and what you see here. It’ll be what you have in the latest packet, the latest signage that we sent in is what it will be. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’ll be this design. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PALADINO-Which the color scheme you can see on there. MRS. BRUNO-Well, the blue definitely improves the look, because it’s not quite so bright. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or questions from the Board? We did keep the public hearing open. Is there anyone here that would like to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Barring none, I will, unless, are there any written comments, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-There are not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Is the Board comfortable in moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-I just have one question about the sign. Is this the sign that’s going on I call it the access road? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. PALADINO-No, that sign’s going on the Route 9. MR. SEGULJIC-Route 9. MR. PALADINO-Correct. The access road is the smaller one. MR. SEGULJIC-And how is it going to be lit? MR. PALADINO-It will be internally lit. MR. SEGULJIC-Internally lit. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m confused. The blue’s going to be lit, or the whole thing’s going to be lit? MR. PALADINO-The whole white will be lit. MR. SEGULJIC-The whole white thing will be lit. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-That doesn’t sound appealing to me. I think you want something more subtle. MR. TRAVER-Probably if it’s not internally illuminated it would be better. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, my understanding is it is internally illuminated. MRS. STEFFAN-But all the signs along that corridor are. MR. PALADINO-If you see it up there, it is subtle. I don’t know if you’ve seen Lake George yet when it is lit at night. MR. SEGULJIC-I have, and it’s not. MR. PALADINO-Well, I would say no more obtrusive than anything else on the street. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s gaudy. MR. PALADINO-Well, that’s your opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I’m not comfortable with an internally lit sign like that. I realize other ones are lit like that. MR. PALADINO-Every other sign on the street is internally lit in that corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they are. MR. PALADINO-I mean, we’ve already agreed to reduce it, take the reader board off. I don’t know how much more you can ask us. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s still a 20 foot sign, which is pretty big. MR. PALADINO-Well, not necessarily compared to the other signs on the street. TIM O’BRIEN MR. O’BRIEN-The last time we discussed the height of that sign versus the height of the building, and the sign is less than the height of the building. MR. PALADINO-Correct. I mean, it’s actually less than proportionate to what the height of the building is. Correct. MR. FORD-How do others feel about that signage pertaining to employment and opening soon? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MRS. STEFFAN-It is kind of bold. That’s the one that’s going to be on Lafayette Street, the help wanted. MR. PALADINO-No, it would be right on Route 9 out in front. Wherever our construction fence would be, it would usually be right on the construction fence. MRS. STEFFAN-Probably next to the, whatever construction company you’re looking at having. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s usually visual spaghetti in front of a building like that. There are lots of signs. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess personally I don’t have a problem with it because it’s temporary and it’s during construction. You already said all the contractors are going to have their signs there and the bank that finances it will have a sign there. I mean, not to make excuses for something. MR. SEGULJIC-How does everybody feel about this sign, the pylon sign? This is the one that’s going to be there permanently. MR. HUNSINGER-Your primary concern being the lighting of it? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the internal lighting. It’s a 20 foot sign. MR. PALADINO-You requested a 20 foot sign. We’ve been a few meetings through that issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Right, but it’s also almost 13 feet wide at the top, just the base is almost four feet wide. MR. SEGULJIC-How far back is the store from there? MR. PALADINO-The store’s back considerably. Compared to the other buildings on the street, we’re sort of in a tunnel. MR. SEGULJIC-I think you’re going to have enough of a presence there. MR. PALADINO-I don’t think so. I don’t agree with you on that. I mean, everyone else has signage up on the street, bigger signage than us, probably just as bright, if not brighter than what we’re proposing here. MR. SEGULJIC-And it looks like a pretty bad area, doesn’t it? MR. PALADINO-I don’t believe so. Once again, I don’t think so. MR. HUNSINGER-How does the width of the sign compare to the other signs right there on Glen? MR. PALADINO-I don’t know. I don’t think it’s that much wider. Obviously before Rite Aid is elongated here, instead of before we had them sort of on top of one another. MR. HUNSINGER-I know we spent a lot of time on this at the last meeting. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. O'BRIEN-The plan that you just had your hand on, the original Rite Aid monument store freestanding sign had two poles, while this sign now has one. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. O'BRIEN-So it’s less of an intrusive sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-Thank you for that modification. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. O'BRIEN-And we apologize. This is a new package that Rite Aid is putting together with the new sign company. So we’re also becoming familiar with the package. MRS. STEFFAN-Just for comparison purposes for the Board, the project that we just looked at, the Exxon sign, was seven feet four inches wide. This Rite Aid sign is much wider, but the Exxon sign was almost six feet deep, where this one is only a little shy of four. So it’s just a different. MR. O'BRIEN-It’s a different configuration. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR.O’BRIEN-It’s also much shorter than they were proposing, too. MRS. STEFFAN-Absolutely, well, theirs will now be 20 feet, too. Your project was very instructive for us. We finally decided what is the appropriate height. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we had, at the last meeting, we had information the Dunkin Donuts sign was 25 feet tall. MR. TRAVER-That whole corridor there, if I remember from site visits, they’re all different. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re all different heights. They’re all, well, I shouldn’t say they’re all lit, but most of them are back lit. MR. O'BRIEN-And a lot are taller than what the building is, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, that’s what we found to be. MR. PALADINO-Almost the norm out there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we found that to be the most objectionable. At least bring the sign down so that it’s not dwarfing the building. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So where are we on this sign? Some folks were okay with it. Some folks weren’t okay with it. I could be okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Tanya? Steve? MR. TRAVER-I think I would rather than it not be internally illuminated, but understanding that that’s the characteristic of the neighborhood, if you will, that’s the only real concern I have at this point, after. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the only issue that members still have? Susan, you had information at the last meeting about the heights and dimensions of the other signs in that area. Do you still have that information handy? MRS. BARDEN-I sure do. You mean in the corridor comparisons? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That doesn’t give you dimensions, though, does it. Well, can we move forward with SEQRA while we’re waiting for Staff? MRS. STEFFAN-Would they have Chapter 140 on the signs? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, probably. They have the whole Code. Okay. Well, while people are looking stuff up, I guess we’ll move forward with SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, folks. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2007 & 1-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 1093 GROUP, LLC, and 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we deal with the subdivision first. MRS. STEFFAN-And we have no conditions on that subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Would anyone like to put forward a motion for the subdivision? MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6.786 acre parcel into two lots of 1.6 and 5.1 acres. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and heard on 1/23/07 tabled to 3/20/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 5. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative Declaration. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to make a motion for Final? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6.786 acre parcel into two lots of 1.6 and 5.1 acres. Subdivisions of land require Planning Board review. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and heard on 1/23/07 tabled to 3/20/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 5. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2007 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative Declaration. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How are we going to deal with the sign? Do you have that information? MRS. BARDEN-I didn’t find the information. I’m looking through the minutes from the last meeting where Mrs. Steffan identifies the Dunkin Donuts. This is based on the information that I’ve provided, Dunkin Donuts sign was 25 feet. Some others in the neighborhood are 17 and a half, 18, and 20, and that’s when the Board decides that 20 is acceptable, and then the next comment from Mr. Hunsinger is relative to the signs being taller than the buildings, and that is not acceptable. So I think the only information I gave you in that corridor for signs was specific to height. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So in Chapter 140 of the Zoning Code, is there any requirements for back lit signs, foot candles or anything like that? MRS. BARDEN-It says all illuminated signs shall employ only lights emitting a light of constant intensity and no sign shall be illuminated by a constant flashing or intermittent sequencing or moving lights. That looks like it’s the only, but that’s it, as far as illumination, and that’s 140-5. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So there’s nothing in our Code that prohibits that. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if we’ve ever discussed that specific issue before. MRS. BARDEN-Other than the flashing lights or the band. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BARDEN-But as far as just internal illumination, I don’t see anything specific, as long as you don’t think that it will be hazardous to traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-So how do we control how bright a sign is lit? And how does an applicant determine what brightness to create? MRS. STEFFAN-Here it says 120 volts, 2.8 amps. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know if that’s a standard. MR. PALADINO-From what we know, the voltage in that is a pretty standard thing, and what, I mean, ours may look a little brighter, possibly because it’s all white as opposed to other ones who have, like Dunkin Donuts with different colors in it, which may subdue the light a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m open for any suggestions people might have. MRS. STEFFAN-I have one other question that just flashed into my head. I remember some discussions that we had early on. On the corners of your building, is there illumination on the corner of your building, lighting, like lighting strips? MRS. BARDEN-Those bands? MRS. STEFFAN-Like the Outback proposed. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. O’BRIEN-Fluorescent type tubing? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, tube lights around the edges of the building. MR. O'BRIEN-No. MR. PALADINO-No, we don’t have those. MR. O'BRIEN-Around our prototype we had, the front canopy was lit, but that we’ve eliminated. The look of this building is different. So it won’t encompass anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-We made them take that out. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought we had talked about it. I just don’t remember. It could be another application. MR. HUNSINGER-We’re deadlocked here. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I have no thoughts. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re in no man’s land, then. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re in no man’s land. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-The thing is they didn’t provide us with the specifications for the lighting, other than. MR. TRAVER-In terms of wattage. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, lamps to be determined, ballasts to be determined. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m forgetting. What was the Board’s consensus on the sign that Tom disliked, with the employment opportunities on the front of it? The last I remember is we talked about that there’ll be bank signs. There’ll be, you know, Rite Aid signs. There’ll be several different signs there. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think that discussion was a reflection that, in the context of that will not be the only sign during the construction phase. I think where we started was possibly not having it up there from ground breaking to stocking the shelves. That maybe we could have it from breaking ground to, you know, the first wall going up or, you know, make some constraint on the time period that it was there, but then it was pointed out later on that it’s one going to be one of any number of signs that are going to be on site. So it’s, I don’t know if in the context of the construction activity if it’s going to be significant to restrict the use of the sign. I think that’s where we left it. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tom, how do you feel about it? MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with it, because it’s going to come down at some point. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-I have no problem with it. MR. HUNSINGER-I think it’s okay. Sorry, Tom. We’re just hung up on the back lit sign. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-How are other back lit signs handled in the Town? They’re just put up, as long as they’re in accordance with the Sign Ordinance? MRS. STEFFAN-As far as size goes. MR. HUNSINGER-As far as size, but there’s no control on the brightness or the illumination? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MRS. BARDEN-Except for this, again, the same section that I was referring to on illumination. It does say no bare lamps, bare bulbs or fluorescent tubes over 40 watts shall be allowed. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, there you go. MRS. BARDEN-But I don’t think we’re talking about fluorescent tubes. We’re talking about bulbs. MR. FORD-But those are bare bulbs. MR. TRAVER-Yes, these are not going to be bare. They’re going to be internally lit. MR. FORD-You don’t know what the wattage is on your typical back lit sign? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can say it can’t exceed 40 watts, which is what the Code says, and if they want more than that, they have to come back. MR. O’BRIEN-Well, that 40 I think was for bulbs, they’re exposed. They’re actually outside of the sign. We’re talking inside the sign. It has to go through something. MR. PALADINO-Older signs just have the light bulbs just screwed in. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re in no man’s land. The only thing I can say is we give them all approvals for this, except for this, and they have to come back. That’s the only thing I can come up with. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ll have to fight that one another day? MR. O'BRIEN-How about 80 or 100, because these, we’re going to have something over it that’s going to dull it. It also evens it out. MR. FORD-Let’s go with 80. That’s twice what the 40 was for a bare bulb. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, that’s part of the problem is the applicant hasn’t, you know, I mean, they haven’t proposed anything to us to respond to. MR. TRAVER-What if we say 80 and it turns out to be brighter than what they plan on using? MRS. BRUNO-Can we find out what’s up in Lake George and then we can all? MR. PALADINO-How about we make it less than what’s in Lake George? MR. TRAVER-I like that. MR. FORD-I’m just trying to come up with a resolution. MR. TRAVER-How about if we make it less than the sign, the illuminated sign that’s in Lake George, if they’re willing to do that? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not comfortable with that. MRS. BARDEN-Do you have any examples that you can think of off hand of something that you approved as of late that you liked? MR. HUNSINGER-I can tell you in the seven years that I’ve been on the Planning Board, we never looked at the illumination factor of the back lit sign. It just hasn’t been on the radar before. MR. PALADINO-Usually the gas station sign, you know, where you have the prices, they’re usually quite bright. I don’t believe the Rite Aid sign is brighter than that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. BOB SEARS 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEARS-I’m sorry to interrupt, but there’s all kinds of signs along that corridor. It is a Highway intensive corridor. They’re modified their sign substantially. It is not going to be the brightest sign. I think they’ve compromised quite a bit. It is the most intensive corridor with the highest use under zoning that there is. So obviously the sign is going to be more (lost words) than it is in other areas. You won’t probably even see that sign unless you’re looking for it. MRS. STEFFAN-The public hearing is closed. I think we’re in no man’s land. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m going to proceed. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing building and construct a new Rite Aid Pharmacy. New Retail uses require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and scheduled for 3/21/06, 10/17/06, 12/19/06, 1/23/07 tabled to 3/20/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. Where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative Declaration. One condition on this approval, that no reader board signage. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MRS. BARDEN-Can I ask one thing? When you did your SEQRA, did you specify it was for the subdivision and the site plan as well? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-If not, we just did. Is that okay? MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I think the Chairman just did that, because I don’t remember doing that. Good luck on your project. MR. HUNSINGER-When I introduced the items, I did introduce both the site plan and the subdivision. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS AGENT(S) CHAD FOWLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING NC-10 LOCATION 347 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVEDSITE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUCTED CHANGES TO THE ENTRANCES TO THE SITE. MODIFICATIONS OF CONVENIENCE STORE USES IN THE NC ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 34-86, SP 40-86, SP 50-93, SP 20-94, SP 24-99, AV 92-93 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 CHAD FOWLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-The applicant requests site plan modifications for constructed changes to a previously approved site plan. The property is located at 347 Aviation Road. Bruce Frank’s site inspection report itemizes the deficiencies between the approved plan and the completed site improvements. With any approval, the Board should consider requiring an as built survey of the property. This is a SEQRA Unlisted Action, and the public hearing was re-noticed on this modification. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. FOWLER-Hi. My name is Chad Fowler from Stewart’s Shops. As you may recall, this was a gasoline tank replacement approval that we did last year. In the process we corrected some drainage problems and at the Board’s request we added a sidewalk along the street. That was the scope of work in total. In the construction process, it was found out by Queensbury Staff that the entrances do not match what we submitted to the Board, and after some investigation, it turns out we drew this new site plan from what we had in the file that was previously approved from Queensbury. We incorrectly did not do any field checks. So what we have now is a plan we submitted that shows the curbing at the entrances, compared to what was approved back in it was 1993 actually, was when we took the data from. I do have some proposals for the Board. There’s really two issues that are left from Mr. Brown’s inspection. One is the width of the entrances, and the second is there’s a corridor, it’s probably best if I just go up and look at the plan with you. The corridor on the side of the building is not 24 feet. That’s an edge of the blacktop. We didn’t change that but we’re willing to if the Board would like to see that at 24 feet, or another suggestion would be to eliminate a parking space to try to widen that. That is to our delivery area, and there’s some Staff parking to the rear. As far as the width of the entrances, currently the right entrance is 31 feet wide, 24 is what we submitted. On this plan I did put, you don’t have this, I drew this today, we did show the tanker coming in. It doesn’t really take the full 30 feet. So I would like to keep that entrance, if possible, but I am willing to narrow up this other side to accommodate the sidewalks that we couldn’t put in there because the property line was too close to the edge of blacktop, to match the entrance on the right, so that they would both be 30 feet. Again, we didn’t construct this during this project. We, again, we drew this from data that we had in the file. We did the gas tank replacement. We added some catch basins for drainage, and paved the place. That was pretty much it. We did add the sidewalk, of course. So I’m willing to accept any suggestions from the Board, as far as remediation. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. Any questions or comments from members of the Board? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. FORD-Yes. I’m interested in how and why this occurred. MR. FOWLER-How? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. FOWLER-We cut corners. We do all the drafting in-house. We have two full time drafts people, and they are very busy, and in this particular case we thought we had what we felt was an accurate drawing from the file. Again, we know what work has been done here, so we took what we had and that’s what we thought it was exactly and we went from there. We did take some shots, survey shots for elevation to design the drainage to draw the plan, to design the drainage system. MR. FORD-I’m concerned that we have companies who have multiple stores or multiple outlets, as does Stewarts, and they tend to go boilerplate and we’re presented with what we assume is accurate information, only to find that somebody pulled the wrong file out of the wrong drawer and this is what we wind up with. MR. SEGULJIC-How many feet difference are we talking here, are you off by, a couple of feet? MR. FOWLER-For the right entrance it was proposed at 24 and we’re at 31. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re seven foot difference. MR. FOWLER-Seven foot difference on that, and then the western entrance, the narrowest point is 31, but if you measure straight across it’s 40. That’s why the sidewalk, that little piece of sidewalk, would not fit, that we agreed to. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re proposing to, once again? MR. FOWLER-We can alter the entrance to accommodate the sidewalk, alter the parking or add blacktop, or, I mean, another possibility, I hesitate to say it, is just submit an as built. MR. SEGULJIC-So looking at this drawing, these pictures here, in reality, where that bush is, should be coming out like seven more feet is what you’re saying. MR. FOWLER-That’s correct, yes, to line up with the back of those cars. So the narrowest point of the entrance stays the same at 30 feet, or it’s 31, but instead of the very large radius coming to the street, it would come more straight to the street and then a quick radius at the end, kind of like the neighbors. MR. SEGULJIC-I really don’t have any problems with it. MR. HUNSINGER-With the way it is. How do other people feel? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have a problem with that the way it is. It works I go to that Stewarts all the time and the site works from a traffic perspective. The only thing is that section right there where you’ve got the handicap parking space. That is kind of narrow. If you’re in Space 22, next to the handicap parking space, and you go to back up, and I’ve got a small car, you’re just about to the end of the pavement. MR. FOWLER-Also we do have, where the rocks are, we tried to eliminate people driving off the edge there. We also have no parking signs there, too. People still park there. We’re willing to add blacktop to the right. What I’m worried is that people are going to park there anyway, but, no matter what I do. The handicap ramp is lined up with that cross hatching. That works pretty well. MR. HUNSINGER-The thing is if you add blacktop to what’s already there, you’re going to have a big seam and it’s going to crack and it’s not going to last long. MR. FOWLER-Well, I’m willing to do it if that’s what the Board wants. MR. FORD-Why don’t we eliminate that one parking spot. MR. FOWLER-That’s a possibility as well. MR. SEGULJIC-What is the issue again? It’s too narrow in that spot? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s very narrow. MR. FOWLER-From the parking space to the edge of blacktop should be 24 feet per Code. MR. SEGULJIC-And what is it, then? MR. FOWLER-Sixteen. We altered it, when we re-striped, the striper moved everything over about, I think three feet to the right, so now we’re closer than we were. If we left it the way it was, it probably would have been okay, but. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn’t line up. MR. FOWLER-You can see the old blue line at the corner of the building, that’s how far over the striper moved it, and we didn’t realize it until Mr. Brown was measuring, otherwise I can re-stripe it, but you have to black out all the lines to re-stripe it. MR. SEGULJIC-So that means that it’s 16 feet now instead of, once again? MR. FOWLER-Twenty-four. It’s always been 16. MR. SEGULJIC-And what’s the issue then? MR. FOWLER-The Code says it should be 24. If I didn’t change it, it would probably be fine existing, but we altered it. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we say that’s okay, does he need a variance for that? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it going to cause any issues? I don’t see what issues it’s going to cause if it’s 16 instead of 24. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just a little tight, yes. MR. FOWLER-Again, it’s for employee and our deliveries is all that’s back there. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course the area that’s striped isn’t meant to be parked on. It’s there so that you can unload a handicapped car, a handicapped vehicle. MR. FOWLER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m okay with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. FORD-Let’s leave it. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? We do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Unlisted. We don’t do SEQRA for modifications. Well, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MRS. BARDEN-This is an Unlisted. MRS. STEFFAN-We considered it, but it’s a modification. So we’d already done an Unlisted. We’d done the SEQRA when they came before us, and nothing significant has changed. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-The only real question that I had, particularly about the driveway openings, you didn’t change anything. That’s what was there. It’s just that the plan that we approved didn’t match what the existing site was. MR. FOWLER-Correct. I did have to replace one piece of curbing to put the sidewalk in, but I left it in the same place. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes. MR. FORD-That’s a pretty dangerous area, as I recall, and would different curbing there possibly cut down on that hazard? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in my opinion, the primary problem isn’t with the Stewarts site, but the site across the street, where you have unlimited, uncontrolled access in and out, and that’s really what causes most of the conflicts. MRS. STEFFAN-The chaos. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the chaos. That’s just my opinion. Well, if there’s no further discussion or no further questions, would anyone like to put forward a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification to an existing approved site plan, specifically constructed changes to the entrances to the site. Modifications of Convenience Store uses in the NC zone require review by the Planning Board. 2. A public hearing was advertised and scheduled 3/20/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. Where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. 7. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, we considered the SEQRA and the prior approval is still appropriate. Paragraph 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) Eight, the applicant will provide as built plans and an as built survey to certify that the plan is developed according to the approved plans, and Number Nine is not applicable. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. FOWLER-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2007 SKETCH SEQR TYPE JEFFREY THREW AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A, SR-1A LOCATION 25 EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6.11 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 1.06, 1.13 AND 3.92 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE MR. BAKER- 20-2004, SP 66-2004 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 137-2-9.8 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This application is for Sketch Plan review of a three lot residential subdivision. The property is located at 35 Eagan Road. The Board reviewed a similar subdivision application entitled Preliminary Stage for a DEC signoff on the capping of the land clearing debris landfill. Per a DEC letter dated December 4, 2006, this requirement appears to have been met. As this project involves the disturbance of greater than one acre of land, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice Of Intent must be filed by the applicant. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves, representing the applicant, Jeffrey Threw, who is sitting at the table with me. As Staff has stated, this has been in front of this Board before. I don’t know if anybody remembers this. MR. HUNSINGER-I sure do. MR. STEVES-And at the time we went through the site plan, we got the site plan approval, which included the proposed subdivision plan, but at the time, at the Board’s request, and we understood the reasoning behind it was to just approve the site plan and then come back for the subdivision once all the conditions were met, and the two conditions that were imposed upon this were the signoff from DEC, which we obtained, and I also have a signoff letter from the site plan from Bruce Frank, your Code Compliance Officer, and at the time Mr. Vollaro recommended that we do test borings. We submitted those reports. After the capping was completed and signed off on, we had the engineer, Fred Dente, do soil borings in the area of the proposed house for determining the stability of the soil, and there is no problem with the material or the stability of the soil. We did four test borings, that would be at the back corners of each of the proposed homes, and as far as the, there’s a stormwater management report that was filed with the application. There was a C.T. Male signoff on the exact plan that you have in front of you, and that’s exactly how it was capped and constructed, and we have that signoff from DEC. With the actual subdivision and the construction of the two homes, there will not be more than an acre of disturbance, there will be less, but we still have no problems with the NOI. The acre of disturbance obviously was with the capping and the grading of that for the DEC purposes, not for the construction of two homes, but the stormwater management plan and report have already been drafted for that. So we have no problem with the NOI. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions or comments from the Board? Just for the benefit of the members that weren’t on the Board when we looked at this before, the existing lot, 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) your proposed Lot One A, refresh my memory on your access. You have deeded rights of way? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-But the subdivision does show more than 40 foot of road frontage as well. MR. STEVES-Correct. You’re required by Town Code to have 40 foot of frontage, even if you have a deeded access. You’re still required 40 foot of frontage. That access has been in place since 1988 or so, or before, but we did accommodate the 40 foot as well, and I believe there was one other Staff comment as well. I don’t know if Susan read it in, as far as the density calcs, that they would be no further subdivision, and we have no problem with that comment either. I just wanted to let you know that everything that the Staff had we have no problems with. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-You had said test borings were done? MR. STEVES-Yes, with Dente Engineering. I submitted copies of those reports. MRS. BARDEN-I think we just received three copies, I think. MR. STEVES-Three. I believe that’s what he sent me at the submission date. MRS. BARDEN-I can get them for you for Preliminary, if you’d like. MR. STEVES-I can make copies of the whole report for you, but we did, at the request of this Board, and we did submit to the Staff the full engineering report from Dente Engineering. He’s the geotechnical engineer. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. This area has been capped already? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. One thing, we need to have the delineation of the former landfill area put on this. MR. STEVES-It’s the grading plan that you show, that small ravine that comes up into the middle of 1B, that’s the area that was filled. I can outline that from the DEC permit. That’s no problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Just let us know where that is. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And one other question. Why is there such a difference between Test Pit One and Test Pit Two with regards to perc rates? MR. STEVES-Probably because of the type of material that was placed there. You’re talking about his perc rates? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, because it goes from one minute, twelve seconds, to twelve minutes, sixteen seconds. MR. STEVES-It’s the compaction, the type of material and how that area was the most heavily driven on. It’s all virgin ground, and the other one was compacted fill. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Mr. Chairman, tonight we’re just doing Preliminary? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s just Sketch Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Just Sketch Plan. MR. STEVES-Just Sketch. What had happened is we were at Preliminary before and you tabled it without prejudice, or denied it without prejudice because of the fact we were waiting for the DEC signoff. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-And now we make you do Sketch Plan. MR. STEVES-So I have to come right back through, and you get to see me a couple of more times. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-You indicated that there were four test pits. MR. STEVES-Four test borings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-And it’s outlined in his plan, Mr. Chairman, but I can locate those on the subdivision plan as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that would be useful. MR. STEVES-But he has, in his report. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s a map in the report. MR. STEVES-There’s a boring log at the back of each one of the proposed houses. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-I mean, I can supply that, or I can put it onto my map, either way. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want it on the map? MR. SEGULJIC-Put it on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-I would just let you know that it’s based on his information. I was a witness to the four test borings. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I thought it was pretty straightforward. MR. STEVES-Just one other bit of information, not related to this project at all, and do not quote me on this, but I have a landscape architect upstairs, Mr. Miller, that I see him do signs all the time, and I believe when he was working with Bob Stoya from Signworks, I thought I heard him stay that they’re all cold start lamps in these freestanding signs, back lit signs, the cold start fluorescent, and I believe they’re around 120 watt. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. From what I’ve heard in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s better than no information. MS. ALTER-Mr. Chairman, could I ask him a question? On your boring logs, how deep did you go? MR. STEVES-I think he went 12 to 16 feet. MS. ALTER-And how deep is the fill? Because I see it’s a gravel pit. Is it deeper than that? MR. STEVES-End of borings, 17 feet. End of borings 16 feet, 12 feet, 12 feet. He went down until he had stabilized, fill, brown sand fill, light gravel, trace of silt and some asphalt, dark brown topsoil, fine sands, trace of gravel and silt. MS. ALTER-Okay. So he found asphalt, which is a C & D material, right? MR. STEVES-Just traces of some broken asphalt. MS. ALTER-Was this used for C & D debris? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. STEVES-No. MS. ALTER-It’s just an occurrence? MR. STEVES-It was a stump dump. MS. ALTER-I understand that, but where did the asphalt come from? JEFF THREW MR. THREW-Asphalt can be used as fill. MR. STEVES-On grading. MR. THREW-It’s not classified as C & D. MS. ALTER-Not up here? It’s classified as that in the southern County. MR. STEVES-It was DEC permitted. MR. THREW-That was just a stump dump. MS. ALTER-But how did the asphalt get there? MR. THREW-Trucked it in, far as fill. MS. ALTER-So you had stumps and fill? MR. THREW-Right. MS. ALTER-Which are going to decompose at different rates. MR. THREW-It was filled in according to DEC. MS. ALTER-They watched it while you filled it in? They regulated it? They tested it? MR. THREW-Stump dumps, it’s not regulated like a C & D landfill. MS. ALTER-No, I understand that. MR. THREW-It’s part of filling it in. It’s not like it’s all blacktop you’re seeing. MR. STEVES-You basically are talking about sand, gravel, course, fine, no non-plastic, no plastic, a few cobbles and traces of asphalt. MS. ALTER-I’m not concerned about the cobbles. I’m concerned about the asphalt. MR. STEVES-I’m just reading through his report. MS. ALTER-But is that the start of the filling or the end of the filling? MR. STEVES-In that one test boring? Just the one, and it was two foot down. MR. FORD-There were four done? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. FORD-And was this found in all four? MR. STEVES-One. MR. FORD-Only one. MR. STEVES-At about two to three feet down. MRS. STEFFAN-When we were there, I was fairly new on the Planning Board, and I remember when we walked the site, there was all kinds of stuff. There was some blacktop chunks that we saw. We saw some concrete chunks. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. STEVES-Piles. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MS. ALTER-But it was clean fill. That’s considered clean fill. It wasn’t patrusible waste, garbage. MRS. STEFFAN-No, no garbage. MS. ALTER-Okay. MR. STEVES-No. It was just some piles that were graded off, and it was capped that way. MS. ALTER-Okay. MR. STEVES-It was just trace. I know that there were some piles of that. There were some, you know, probably some rock, some asphalt, some stone, maybe a few brick, I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there were even some pipes filled with concrete with stone in them and it was just, it was out of my experience. I think it was out of most people’s experience. So we paid very close attention to what was there. MR. STEVES-But the concern was where the organic material was being, stumps and brush was, as it decomposed, if it would have any problems with the soils in the area of the houses, and we don’t. It’s substantially back into the old ravine, and nowhere where we’re going to build. MRS. STEFFAN-Now are these houses proposed to be built and sold? Is that spec? MR. STEVES-No, just to get the subdivision done so that, whether he wants to build on them himself or sell the lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, but as it said in the DEC permitting, that there have to be plat notations. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. STEFFAN-That it isn’t a C & D dump, it was. MR. STEVES-Yes. Absolutely. Yes, plat notations as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. So anything you want to see besides the two things on the map? The borings and the outline of the old landfill? MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve got it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, normal stuff. MR. STEVES-Yes, it’s on there. I’ll just define it better. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB AGENT(S) BOHLER ENG./J. GILLESPIE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HC INTENSIVE LOCATION 474 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING MOBIL GAS STATION & SNACK SHOP FOR PROPOSED 4,250 SQ. FT. JOLLEY C-STORE & GAS STATION, SANDWICH SHOP & DUNKIN DONUTS WITH A DRIVE THRU. CONVENIENT STORE, GASOLINE STATION AND FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ESTABLISHMENTS ARE ALL USES THAT REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE FOUND WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-98 SECTION 179-4-020 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) JIM GILLESPIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This project requests site plan review for a 4,250 square foot Jolley Convenience store, gas station, sandwich shop and Dunkin Donuts drive thru. The property is located at 474 Aviation Road. Staff has concerns regarding access to the site. Additional information to consider for further review include the submission of elevation drawings, architectural specifications for the building, and renderings of the fuel canopy, signage details and a Long Environmental Assessment Form. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval with stipulation at their March meeting. A comment letter from the Town Engineer dated March 16 has been received. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for your patience. MR. GILLESPIE-Good evening. My name’s Jim Gillespie from Bohler Engineering. With me is Mr. Sean Crumb from Jolley Associates. This evening we just wanted to introduce the project to the Board. We received a number of comments from the County Planning Board, as well as Staff, engineering comments. We’re certainly going to work with them to address those. Tonight we just want to present the plan to the Board and hopefully solicit any additional comments the Board may have in preparation for a re-submission to the Town. So, I’ll just run through the site plan briefly. The site is located is an existing Mobil gas station. You’re probably all very familiar with it on Aviation Road and Burke, just west of the 87 southbound on ramp. It’s currently a 1600 square feet plus or minus convenience store. We’ll take a look at the existing plan, just as a comparison, the existing snack shop, two fuel island canopy, very large curb cut on Burke Road, curb cut on Aviation Road, septic system in the back, wooded area. Basically the new plan is a proposed scrape and re-build of the entire facility, with the exception of the existing fuel tanks, which are proposed to remain. The curb cuts are proposed to remain as well, with some minor modifications. The new plan is proposing a 4250 square foot Dunkin Donuts, a new fuel canopy, like I said, the existing tanks to remain, some modifications, and additional green space out in front of the site, as well as along the side, some proposed landscaping. Along with the convenience store is proposed a Dunkin Donuts with a drive thru inside the shop, as well as a sandwich shop presentation. New parking proposed throughout, landscaping, lighting throughout the site, and like I said, I just want to clear up if there’s any confusion here, this green site is actually a match line, which attaches to the back of this match line. The site is also abutting Abbey Lane, if that was any confusion to anybody. So it’s a very long site, and in the back here, this would be our proposed stormwater detention basin, and our proposed septic system behind that. Just all the other utilities are existing, on site water and gas, and that pretty much sums up the proposed improvements. Like I said, there were a number of Staff comments. We’re certainly willing to work with them to address that, and we’ll be making a formal architectural submission as well. One of the things we would like to do is present a similar building and some similar photographs to possibly solicit some comments from the Board as far as what they’d like to see. Additionally, we’ve received some comments from DEC, conceptually approving the proposed access. We could certainly give that to Staff as well, as part of the record. Another one of the County comments, probably their biggest concern was buffering the site, but also they had some additional traffic concerns. So we’re certainly going to work with a traffic engineer to prepare a traffic report as part of our next submission. That’ll be included, and the only other major comment I wanted to go over with the Board tonight was associated with Staff’s determination of the parking calc. When we had originally met with Staff, we had gone over the parking calc, and what we had done was based our calc on the entire square footage being convenience store, and additionally we had counted the seats. I’m just trying to find the parking calc here for a minute. We had used the entire square footage as convenience store, and we had counted one space for each four seats, plus one space for each two employees as part of the restaurant use. Our reasoning behind that is we certainly want to accommodate any restaurant use or any seating use for their Dunkin Donuts portion of the project, but we don’t want to do is over park it. We feel that this is solely, or wholly mostly a convenience store. It’s certainly not going to be a destination restaurant. It’s going to be primarily take out or drive thru use. Certainly we can accommodate the seats that are in there with the proposed parking we have. We can accommodate the convenience store with the proposed parking we have. So we really don’t want to over park this or over construct a sea of asphalt when we don’t feel it’s necessary. If we need to meet that interpretation or we need to designate a restaurant area and use part of that square footage in a restaurant calc, what we’d like the Board to consider is possibly we could land bank an area in the back, show that we have sufficient room for additional parking. I’m not sure if this Board has that ability to approve that, or that would require a variance, but that is something we would like to 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) discuss and like the Board to consider. So that we don’t, you know, build parking that we don’t need. MR. HUNSINGER-We have some discretion with parking, but if you go outside of that discretion, then it may need a variance. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Without getting in to the specific numbers and calculations, I can’t tell you if it would require a variance or not. MR. GILLESPIE-I mean, maybe Staff could re-look at their determination, as far as the calcs were. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but we frequently do that where you would set aside future parking, and then if you need it, you would be asked to build it. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. Other than that, you know, there were multiple Staff comments. A lot of them were technical issues that we’re certainly willing to address in our next submittal. I’m not sure that we need to go through them all, unless the Board really has some that they’d like to discuss. Other than that, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have. MRS. STEFFAN-I have an opinion on the visuals that you provided. In that area of Town, you’ve got the Queensbury Middle School across the street, which is all brick facades, and you’ve got the Methodist Church on the other side of this building that’s brick, and so I would like, I think it would be aesthetically pleasing to go with brick, on your building, just so that it would tie in to the theme of the area. SEAN CRUMB MR. CRUMB-We can certainly consider that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. FORD-Agreed. MRS. STEFFAN-Because this is visual spaghetti for me, just so you know, there’s a lot of colors. There’s a lot of different shapes, and it’s not just congruent with the theme that’s going on, even when you go down the next building from the Methodist Church is a Catholic church, and that’s also got a brick façade on it. So that whole area is brick. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else, questions, comments? MRS. STEFFAN-I do like the flower boxes that are proposed on the drawing. I think they’re very nice. MR. SEGULJIC-How wide does the entrance way have to be? Because it looks like on Burke Road the entrance way is particularly wide. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it is. MR. GILLESPIE-We had kept it as it currently exists, primarily to accommodate tanker deliveries through there. It’s kind of an odd delivery scenario, and again, we’re certainly willing to take another look at other possibilities, but one of the reasons is to allow this swing. There certainly could be some adjustment in Burke Road. There was, I think comments came from the engineer, as well as Staff, and I believe it was even a County comment to take another look at possibly reducing the width of that, but we can certainly look at that as long as we could accommodate the tractor trailer delivery. MR. SEGULJIC-If you couldn’t, then if you could possibly put another tree in there, towards Aviation Road. MR. GILLESPIE-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-And also enhance the landscaping along the eastern side of the site, Northway side. MR. GILLESPIE-The Northway side, yes. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-And then also with your lighting, your canopy is up, underneath your canopy seems to be pretty high. MR. CRUMB-We did realize that the illumination levels were a bit high and inconsistent. So we’re looking at changing that whole, and we’ll have a re-submittal with that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Because our Code, I think, says 10. MR. CRUMB-We will certainly adhere to the Code. MR. SEGULJIC-And also if you could have recessed lighting in there. Yes, they will be flush mounted, up within the canopy. MR. FORD-Have you considered adding a car wash? MR. GILLESPIE-And a body shop later on. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. GILLESPIE-We actually have considered it, but we pulled it. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing is, if you could provide us, next time, renderings of your proposed canopy. MR. GILLESPIE-Certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything, Tom? MR. FORD-I’m happy with the way it’s progressing. I certainly agree with what Gretchen mentioned about the brick. MRS. STEFFAN-Will this still be a Mobil Station? MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, it will. Now, you had mentioned some issues, mentioned some colors. Do you have specific issues with the colors? Would you like to see the colors remain and brick be added? I’m just trying to gauge your thought process here on what your likes and dislikes are with the elevations? MRS. STEFFAN-Colors have been a very subjective issue for us. There’s a car wash in Town, for example, that was approved, has a beautiful brick façade on the outside. The landscaping is very nice, but then their vacuum stations, which we overlooked, are orange and yellow, and they’re right out in front of the building on the street. They’re awful. MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, I’m familiar with that. Now the churches are a bit bland. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, it’s usually brick and black. MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, and, you know, our hopes are not to go quite that bland. So I’m not saying that we’ll change everything to meet your needs, but I’m just trying to gauge what you’re after here. MRS. STEFFAN-What’s reasonable. MR. GILLESPIE-We’ll take a long look at. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you were here for the other convenience store. MR. GILLESPIE-I learned a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that design, I mean, we approved it, but that design would fit very well here, in my opinion. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I’m glad to hear that you’re pleased with that design. MR. CRUMB-Industrial Adirondack. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Industrial Adirondack. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we coined a new one tonight. What we’re trying to do is just make sure that things are a bit more aesthetically pleasing, and we’re also trying to change the appearance, for lack of a better word. We’re decreased the cheese factor on some of these commercial buildings. I don’t know how you’d quantify that. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there anything specific you wanted to add about the site plan, since you had it out? MRS. STEFFAN-I agreed with Tom on beefing up the landscape a little bit. You talked about parking in the back. If, as we go through the process, you’re able to eliminate some of the parking, I would like to have some of the trees left, like if you could eliminate the line of parking spaces in the back between the building, the drive thru, the parking spaces up against the building, and the stormwater retention, and I think that that would just add to the site. Any time you can leave trees, and especially mature trees, it’s a good thing. MR. GILLESPIE-There are actually very few mature trees to the rear of that property. It’s basically in the immediate rear there’s a bit of overgrown scrub. It’s fairly unattractive. How that will be affected entirely I couldn’t sit here and tell you at this point in time. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, even if we take those out, if we maybe put some larger trees in their place. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I would agree as well. There will be that stormwater pond in the rear that we plan on putting a fence around and offering, if the Board’s agreeable to it, some picnic tables and so forth, so that if folks want to go out. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, that’s what I was going to suggest, picnic tables and trees are much nicer, if you’re on a road trip and it’s, you know, fair weather. MR. GILLESPIE-With a grassy area, and one thing regarding parking, and I don’t want to shoot myself here, but going back to your comments with the folks at Midway MT, there regarding tractor trailers, cars with trailers and so forth, it’s a prime spot for them to pull in, in the rear, take a break, take their family, have something to eat at the picnic table, what have you. So we don’t want to have too much parking, but I also think we need to be considering some of those. I don’t think that the traffic’s as heavy there, but I think that there’s still that traffic coming through. So, you know, not to congest the site, but not to overgrow the site as well. MRS. STEFFAN-I think, I happen to go to that station all the time, and you have a different, you know, client base. There’s a lot of individual cars there. You don’t usually see RV’s. You’ll see pick up trucks, but. MR. GILLESPIE-Not so much transient traffic off the Interstate. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. They’re usually getting on up at the higher exits. So you don’t see as much on and off as some of the big RV’s and things like that. Although I do think that this space is underutilized. So I wasn’t surprised to see the plan. It is a big piece of property and it’s a fairly small space. MR. GILLESPIE-And it is very underutilized. MR. HUNSINGER-How long has the existing building been there? MR. GILLESPIE-That’s a good question. We purchased the property from Exxon Mobil back at the end of 2005. I want to say that’s got to be 20 plus years. MR. HUNSINGER-That would have been my guess, too. Yes. MR. GILLESPIE-It’s worn out. MR. HUNSINGER-Tanya or Steve, do you have any other comments? MS. ALTER-Chris, could I just add one other thing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MS. ALTER-There’s a pin number for this Exit 18, and the people that you contacted at DOT are relatively new. They were appointed by Spitzer the end of January or the beginning of February, and I’m not saying it’s going to impact your plan, but this is a different group than is working on the pin numbers. You might want to just make sure that you’re not doing anything that they’re going to make you rip up. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. I’ll check that. MRS. STEFFAN-Actually, this is off Exit 19. MR. GILLESPIE-Yes, not 18. Eighteen is in eminent domain, I believe. MRS. STEFFAN-Is the Main Street project. MS. ALTER-I’m sorry. Susan told me 18. Never mind. It’s a Roseanne Roseanna Danna, never mind. MRS. STEFFAN-There is another Mobil station at 18 that they’re ripping out. MS. ALTER-Yes, that’s why I asked. MRS. STEFFAN-I used to go to that one. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I give you guys a lot of money every year. I commute to Albany every day. MR. SEGULJIC-Any signs proposed? MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. I believe there’s a depiction of the sign and after learning a little bit more, we’ll scale that down to 20 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Pylon sign then? MR. GILLESPIE-No, it would be a cantilevered sign, and I can give you a color rendering of it. I only have the single one with me. MR. SEGULJIC-You can give that to us the next time. MR. GILLESPIE-I’ll give it to you now, just so you can take a look at it. I have plenty of these. MR. SEGULJIC-And what kind of wattage do you have in there? MR. GILLESPIE-That I’ll have to clarify. MR. SEGULJIC-If you would, please. MR. FORD-I appreciate your sensitivity to permeable versus permeable surfaces. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, we have a number of sites. We currently operate 44. That happens to be one of our newer sites in South Burlington, and with our next submission, I will submit to you some of our, some wider shots of our areas. We take a lot of pride in our imaging and our landscaping and being a good neighbor. So we want to blend those things, because they work hand in hand with being a good neighbor and generating business, and again, we want to work with you and be a good neighbor. MRS. STEFFAN-That, the landscaped area on the intersection of Burke Road and Aviation Roads, I think there’s a great opportunity there for nice landscaping. MR. GILLESPIE-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just. MR. GILLESPIE-Lacking now. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Absolutely, and it’s a good opportunity. It’s a nice section. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I think it would be great if we could have a design that we could point to in the future, come up with a design that we could point to in the future when another gas station comes to Town, say go to Exit 19, that’s what we’re looking for. MR. FORD-Yes, that’s what we’re looking for. MR. GILLESPIE-We would like to say that, and I want to tell you I’m flattered that you’ve already used, referenced one of our sites this evening. MR. SEGULJIC-Which one was that? MR. GILLESPIE-That was the Exxon in Manchester. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. GILLESPIE-And he’s right in his account that it’s a tough building to work with. I will say that because the snow falls right at your feet. It’s small. It looks rather large, but it’s actually cumbersome. It’s very, very small. Offices are upstairs. That site’s a nightmare, to be quite honest with you. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like it’s a tough site. MR. GILLESPIE-And it’s not the building that’s killing the business, but it’s location to malfunction junction there in Manchester, but again, the building design is just terrible. MRS. STEFFAN-It seemed like a good idea at the time. MR. GILLESPIE-It certainly looks nice to stand back and take a look at it. It looks very nice, but practicality wise, it just does not function. MRS. BRUNO-Am I remembering right that it’s like one big curb cut, too. MR. GILLESPIE-No, that has two curb cuts. There’s an island in the center. MRS. BRUNO-Does it? It must have been the amount of snow that day. It just kind of all blended. MR. GILLESPIE-Blanketed the whole place, but that, again, is a tough site. MRS. STEFFAN-Some of the other things that you probably heard tonight on signs were not favorable, on reader boards, and the other thing that we’re not favorable on is the illuminated numbers on the gas. MR. GILLESPIE-The electronic digital? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. GILLESPIE-Like the one just down the street at Sunoco there. MRS. STEFFAN-A mistake. MR. FORD-Just down the street. MRS. STEFFAN-We have two of them. We have a reader board, and we have that sign. MR. GILLESPIE-In the gas business these days, practicality wise, they’re great. They don’t function that well. We don’t particularly like them either, but, you know, to save labor, they do work great, the price changes that we’re having to go through these days, but again, the aesthetics we’re not comfortable with that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we still scratch our heads. We’re like, we missed that. MR. GILLESPIE-It is certainly bright. MR. HUNSINGER-Now, see, there’s a place where the illumination, you know, the wattage would be good to know. MR. GILLESPIE-However, you know, I think that there’s two distinct strips there. There’s the east side and the west side, where the east side is a bit more commercial and 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) overgrown, where the west side is a little more subtle and quieter with the churches and so forth. So we’d like to blend in to that. MRS. STEFFAN-And I certainly think you’d have a great draw there. I mean, just with everything that’s around you. Yes, you’re right next to the Northway, but you’ll be picking up folks from school. You’ll be picking up folks from church, and there’s a lot of residential development on the other end of that. It would be very convenient. MR. GILLESPIE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I will open the public hearing and table the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. BARDEN-I have one. MR. HUNSINGER-You do. Wow. You were just waiting. MRS. BARDEN-I was. This is from Timothy Place, Assistant Superintendent for Business at Queensbury Union Free School District. This was faxed to the Planning Department today, March 20. “Dear Sir: We are writing this letter in response to the notice of public hearing that we recently received regarding the application submitted by Jolley Associates for Parcel Tax ID # 302.5-1-98, 474 Aviation Road. Queensbury Union Free School District is currently conducting a Master Site Plan Study of our campus on Aviation Road across from the above referenced parcel. Our study is being made in conjunction with the Aviation Road Corridor Study commissioned by the Town of Queensbury and the Adirondack-Glens Falls Transportation Council. Please note that much of our concern and the concern of the Aviation Road Corridor Study group is related to the traffic congestion on Aviation Road in front of the school campus. It appears that this application will exacerbate our traffic situation and in addition may endanger the pedestrian (including student) traffic at that intersection. We ask that you note our concern of the potential conflict that will result because our peak traffic time will mirror the peak traffic time of this new business with its expanded services. During your review of this application please contact me if you desire more information from the District or our consultant, Clough, Harbour & Associates. Thank you for this opportunity to comment regarding this application and please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Timothy G. Place Assistant Superintendent for Business” MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. Were they going to contact the Planning Board when they do their traffic study analysis? MRS. STEFFAN-Probably not. MR. SEGULJIC-Apparently they want us to contact them. MR.TRAVER-Right. MR. GILLESPIE-Just for your information, we’ve already begun putting together proposals for traffic studies at this site. So that is under way. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I’ll see what I can find from A/GFTC for you for next time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No, because, I mean, it might have been before your time, but we have frequently talked about how the School exacerbated the traffic problems on Aviation Road, and never took into consideration site plan review by the Town or the Planning Board. They just went and did whatever they wanted, and it is an absolute nightmare. Anyone that tries to go there at 7:15, Monday through Friday. Do we have a tabling motion? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I have some things. MR. HUNSINGER-We have some things on it. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we want to table to an unspecified date at this point? 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea when you’d have your materials available? MR. GILLESPIE-Well, we can certainly revise the site plan. I think at this point the traffic study’s going to be delay at our end, and whether or not you will require us to have that study for the next meeting. I would certainly like to move this process along, and I’ll lay out some of my concerns with that. One of the requirements from Exxon Mobil, when we purchased the property, was that we do some upgrades on the lines and tanks if needed. The tanks are fine. They can remain. However, Mobil is stipulating that the lines underground, pumping product to the pumps themselves, need to be replaced. They are on their own agenda and timeframe for that, and I’d like to do my best to coincide those dates, if at all possible, just for construction purposes. So if we can continue to move this process along and bring in the traffic study when it becomes available, I’d like to do that. We can certainly go back and revise our site plan and get you the elevation drawings you’re requesting, lighting plan, landscaping, the whole works. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, you understand we wouldn’t be able to approve any site plan until we had the traffic study. MR. GILLESPIE-I do, but in my thought process, maybe that will, maybe we can speed it up by one meeting. Time constraints are going to be tough on us. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So if we hear this again in May, is that a problem, or is that okay? MR. GILLESPIE-I’d like to see, I mean, is it too much to ask to go into April, come back in April, and when would we need to provide you the information? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what we’re trying to figure out. The normal submission date is th the 15 of the month. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. So we’re past that. MR. HUNSINGER-So we’ve already past the April submission date. MR. FORD-Plus we’re already over on agenda items for April, for two meetings. MRS. STEFFAN-This will end up pushing some other folks into May. MR. HUNSINGER-Into May. MR. CRUMB-We may have a traffic study by then, by May. MR. GILLESPIE-Well, I guess, then, why don’t we shoot for May. We’ll have our revised th site plan and related information in by the 15, and provided the traffic study’s in, we’ll have it then, and submit that as soon as possible. th MR. HUNSINGER-We can put you on the May 15. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. th MRS. BARDEN-And that’s with a submission date of April 15? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. thth MRS. STEFFAN-The 15’s on a Sunday. Do we make it the 16, like the IRS. th MR. HUNSINGER-Do you think you’ll have your traffic study by April 15? MR. CRUMB-It’s possible. It’s possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. This is the tabling resolution that I put together. If I’m missing something, please let me know. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOC. c/o SEAN CRUMB, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Tabled to the May 15 Planning Board th meeting with an April 16 submission deadline. We’d like to table it so that the applicants can submit the following: 1. Long Form Environmental Assessment Form. 2. So that they can address Staff Notes 3. They can address Vision Engineering comments 4. They can provide a traffic report and traffic flow patterns 5. They can do lighting plan revisions 6. Provide canopy renderings with colors, 7. To provide an enhanced landscaping plan 8. To provide building design options 9. To provide sign details. th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: MR. GILLESPIE-I have one question. Mobil prefers to have an illuminated blue band around the canopy. Just off the cuff, is that allowable? Is that a non-allowable use? MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t like them. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. I’ll propose it the way we’d like to see it, and if we need to revise it, we’ll do that. MR. STEFFAN-Yes, we’ve had several applications in the last year who wanted that and even national chains that came in, and we said no. MR. HUNSINGER-We said no. MR. GILLESPIE-And that’s fine if you’re against it. MR. HUNSINGER-I remember Sunoco specifically was one of them. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s that cheese factor I talked about. MR. GILLESPIE-So basically the answer is no. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. GILLESPIE-Okay. MR. FORD-We’ve found with other applications it’s really been beneficial for everyone concerned if you bring in materials so we have actual coloration, rather than a computerized rendering. MR. GILLESPIE-Not a problem. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s never the right color. MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Just the landscaping that Mr. Seguljic talked about on Burke Drive and the Northway side as well, with the enhanced landscaping on those two sides. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I said enhanced landscaping. Do we need to be specific? MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay. MR. SEGULJIC-And then another thing is the review of the width of the Burke entrance. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, the Burke entrance, curb cut. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I put, provide traffic report and traffic flow patterns. I assumed that that would be all encompassing. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/20/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Is that understood? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think so. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Sipp MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. GILLESPIE-Great. Thank you. MR. CRUMB-Thanks for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other business? MRS. BARDEN-What do you think about a third meeting in April? MR. HUNSINGER-I was afraid you might ask. MRS. BARDEN-Well, we have 18 items, and you just tabled two. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can we talk about it next Tuesday, or Thursday. MR. FORD-Meeting Two of Three. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no further business, would someone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 20 day of March, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mr. Sipp On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 64