The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-02-25 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY JOHN STROUGH ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 9-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED SALLY KELLY AGENT: DAVID KELLY ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: 8 ROCKY SHORE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 945 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 8-2003, BP 02-855, 02-854 LGPC, APA, CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/11/02 TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-3/3.-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.89 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re going to table Site Plan No. 9-2003 for Sally Kelly. MR. MAC EWAN-Pending ZBA determination. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Pending ZBA determination. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-It will be reheard again. MR. HILTON-In March. MR. MAC EWAN-In March. What do we want to do it, the first regular meeting in March or the second? How are you stacking up? You don’t really know yet what we have for March? MR. HILTON-We do know, but as far as order. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s just table it to the second meeting of March. MR. HILTON-I think that would probably be the best. MR. MAC EWAN-Which would be March the 25. All right. We’ll table it until March 25. All thth right. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) SITE PLAN NO. 11-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD & DEBRA SELKOW AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 160 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BOAT COVER/SUNDECK IN THE SAME LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION BUT WITH A REDUCTION IN HEIGHT. BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW IN THE WR ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 10-2003, 12/19/02 LETTER FROM Z.A. APA, CEA, LGPC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-5/9-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.35 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that needs to be tabled pending the ZBA determination. MR. MAC EWAN-Determination, yes. I’ll open up the public hearing on that one as well, and that will be tabled to our March 25 meeting. th PUBLIC HEARING OPENED SITE PLAN NO. 12-2003 TYPE II DENISE BUHER, PT PROPERTY OWNER: BAY ASSOCIATES C/O FRANK DE SANTIS, ESQ. AGENT: RICHARD E. JONES ASSOCIATES & JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: PO LOCATION: HUNTERBROOK LANE, LOT #5 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,717 SQ. FT. PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN A PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 5-89, SB 21-89, AV 14-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 289.15-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020, 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & DICK JONES, REPRESENTNG APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Site Plan No. 12-2003, Denise Buher, PT, Meeting Date: February 25, 2003 “Project Description: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 3717 sq. ft. building to be used as a physical therapy office, as well as associated parking, lighting, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed physical therapy office requires Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. The application meets the dimensional and setback requirements of the Professional Office zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? It appears that the proposal would be in character with other uses in the area and would not present an increased burden on public services and facilities. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated as a result of this proposal. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The site plan presents a layout and design of site features that is compatible overall. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access will be off of Hunter Brook Ln. and will adequately serve this site. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Parking spaces shown are of adequate size and number and would provide for safe parking and loading at this location. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access is provided toward the rear of the building. Walkways are proposed to connect the building to the edge of the parking area. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan, which will be reviewed by CT Male. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Water service through the municipal water system will be provided. Currently this property is not within a sanitary sewer district. An on-site septic system will be constructed to serve this property. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan, which provides for trees and planting throughout the site. The plan also calls for the retention of some existing vegetation to be used as site landscaping. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Adequate provisions and access points exist for fire and emergency response for this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SB 5-1989, resolved 8/15/1989, Crossroads Park Subdivision approval Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 3717 sq. ft. physical therapy office on the Northwest corner of Blind Rock Rd. and Hunter Brook Lane. The proposed office meets the setback, dimensional and permeability requirements of the Professional Office Zone. The proposed plan shows an access drive on Hunter Brook Lane, which is required to receive a variance from the driveway spacing requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. At the time of these notes, the applicant is scheduled to appear before the ZBA on February 19, 2003. The drive would be located approximately 160 ft. north of the intersection of Blind Rock Rd. The Area Variance application is seeking relief from the driveway spacing requirements between this site and the property to the north (Credit Union). Locating the access drive in this location is preferable to providing access closer to or off of Blind Rock Rd. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan, which calls for new landscaping as well as the retention of some trees on the rear of the property. Staff recommends that the landscape plan be revised to include street landscaping along Blind Rock Rd. as required in Section 179-8-040 B. The current Site Plan shows sugar maples to be planted along Hunter Brook Ln., which meets the street landscaping requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Lighting levels and intensities appear to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. The fixtures identified as Type B on the lighting plan should have flat lens cutoffs. Will lights shown as Type A be building or pole mounted? The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report along with the Site Plan. That plan has been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted, a long form has been submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant’s proposal of an approximately 3700 square foot physical therapy office complies with the Zoning Ordinance. The land is zoned Professional Office and allows this type of use. A variance has been granted by the ZBA to allow the access proposed for Hunterbrook Lane to be closer than what is allowed by Code to the driveway to the north. One issue with this application appears to be additional landscaping which may be required as part of our Zoning Ordinance, our landscaping along streets section would apply, and some extension of the sugar maples that are currently along Hunterbrook along Blind Rock would satisfy this requirement. Lighting levels and intensities appear to meet the Zoning Ordinance 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) requirements. Just a question. The lights that are shown as Type A, are they going to be pole mounted or building mounted? And any stormwater comments from C.T. Male or other comments should be addressed during this review. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dick Jones, Architect. Denise Buher is here with us as well to answer any questions that the Board may have. As George just mentioned, we were at the Zoning Board last week, where we were very well received. Just to explain, we requested a small Area Variance for the location of the driveway because even though the site could technically comply, we felt that it was better to move it away from Blind Rock Road just for safety and aesthetic reasons, and that allowed Dick to design the site plan so that the parking could be behind the building when you’re traveling on Blind Rock Road, just to camouflage the parking. I’m sure everyone’s familiar with the lot that’s been sitting sort of fallow for all these years across the street from where we are. Just to talk a little bit about that subdivision, that was approved, Crossroads Park, many years ago. Rich Schermerhorn, of course, built the townhouse buildings which was his first prototype, and people have mentioned that because the backs of the buildings face the road that it’s not the ultimate design, but it wasn’t his subdivision. He bought it after it was approved. So by putting the building here, it’ll sort of, in some sense, serve to buffer the back of those buildings. I think Dick’s designed a very attractive, you know, simple but attractive building. It’s not too big. We’ve addressed all of the C.T. Male issues and Dick will go through that, but we have their signoff letter today, and of course we’re here to consent to add some more trees along Blind Rock, as Staff has suggested. With that, I’ll ask Dick to walk you through the site plan. MR. JONES-Good evening. What I’d like to do is just give you an overview of the project itself. Blind Rock Road is to the bottom of the sheet. Hunterbrook Lane to the right hand side. Basically, we’re looking to provide a building of approximately 3700 square feet for a professional office building for a physical therapist. One of the important aspects of the design was being able to situate the building in a fashion so that it was close to Hunterbrook as well as Blind Rock. We realized that we could not access our property onto Blind Rock. So we were looking to provide the access from Hunterbrook Lane. In doing that, we wanted to get the parking behind the building so that we could technically screen it from Blind Rock Road and the adjoining parcels of property. You’ll notice that we have more handicapped spaces than are required by either the New York State Building Code or the local Zoning Ordinance, and the reason for that is because it is utilized by a physical therapist. Basically, all of the parking comes in off of Hunterbrook Lane on what would be the north side of the parcel. Parking is parallel or perpendicular to the back of the building. Basically the main entrance of the building is on the back side, and this north elevation depicts that. Basically we wanted to provide a building that was residential in scale. As you’re aware, we have the two story apartments to the west side. We have the existing credit union, which is a single story wood frame building behind it, and to the east we have the parcel that was just converted to the church, again a single story pitched roof building. We feel that what we’ve presented here tonight is indicative of a residential scale. It still looks like a professional office building. We’re looking at horizontal siding and shakes on the building. Everything is going to be an earth tone type color. We’ve provided some decorative window treatments. This actually is the south elevation which faces Blind Rock Road, and this is the large physical therapy space within the building. There we’re looking to be able to maximize the view to the south side of the property. Basically, the comments that we’ve gotten from C.T. Male, the important comments were in reference to the site drainage. We basically addressed those comments by doing infiltration trenches along the eaves sides of the building, and that would be at the back entrance along the east side of the building and the west side, and then a little return where we have a hipped roof portion along the front or the south side of the building. We’ve altered a grade here at the exit point/entrance point onto Hunterbrook Lane to minimize the runoff that currently would come 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) off of the driveway area onto Hunterbrook Lane. The current drainage pattern on Hunterbrook Lane, there are two catch basins that are located on either side of Hunterbrook Lane, on the approximate centerline between the credit union and the proposed physical therapist’s office. Basically grade pitches from Blind Rock Road to the north, and then comes across and pitches from the north back to that low point. Basically, everything on our site on this area is shedding to the back side and to the north where we’re doing a collection, and then we have a small infiltration area here on the west side. Basically we’re providing additional landscaping, foundation planting around the building. We’ve indicated two sugar maples along the Hunterbrook Lane side, and it’s our intent to provide two more along the Blind Rock Road side to conform to Staff comments. The other primary comments were in reference to the lighting itself. Basically we have pole mounted lights along the parking area, and those we did submit a cut on those, and we had a cut off type note on there, but we didn’t indicate that that was going to be provided. It will be provided. The Type A fixtures along the building are actually soffit fixtures, and that was noted in the schedule on Drawing SP-1. Basically, that covers the comments. I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we ask questions, Dick, do you want to just run through C.T. Male’s letter of the 19? th MR. JONES-They had asked us, in reference to names of the adjoining property owners, we did supply them with a small scale plan which did indicate the changes and the additions to the site plan. That would have been SP-2. Basically we did provide those names to them for the adjoining property owners. As part of the drainage report, we provided information relative to a test pit that had been done on site, as well as the percolation test. The uniformity ratio, they were asking about that on the site plan itself, for the lighting levels. The new Zoning Ordinance requires, I believe, a maximum 4 to 1 ratio, which is what we ended up providing. We did provide them with that information. We have the lighting packet which allows us to basically go in and provide that information and also do the lighting levels for the uniformity ratio. We did provide that to them. Our maximum ratio is four to one, as per the zoning requirement. As I indicated, we did revise the rate along the Hunterbrook Lane. Basically by making it parallel to Hunterbrook Lane, we had it going off on an angle. We basically rotated it so it is parallel to Hunterbrook Lane, thus minimizing the amount of the flow that would come out of the driveway onto Hunterbrook Lane. It also explains the surface flow information to the individual from C.T. Male. He was not aware of the fact that there were actually paved shoulders for drainage along that road. When he was there looking at the site, there was so much snow that he couldn’t see the shoulders. The actual existing plans for the subdivision, we had a copy of that because we were involved in that originally with Bay when they were doing that. We then went through the runoff that was going to be collected from the eaves of the building. Basically we’re going to be collecting and infiltrating via infiltration trenches along both of the eaves sides of the building which would be the east and west side of the building. We did provide copies of that to them, and a copy to the Planning Office as well. It would be our intent to update that information as part of the final site plan, so that that is incorporated into the total package. MR. MAC EWAN-We do have a signoff from C.T. Male? MR. JONES-Yes, we do. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, Bob, we’ll start with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll go through my notes real quick. Some of the stuff has already been answered. The adjoining properties have been answered. I went through your stormwater report. I think you said there was a five minute perc rate in your stormwater report. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether they missed that or not, but your whole stormwater was based on a five minute perc. The parking lot grading, I had notes on it. It went from 384 to 383. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) The infiltration trench looks okay, and I think you’ve commented re-grading that small amount that would runoff into Hunterbrook. You’re going to just re-grade that to go off into Hunterbrook. MR. JONES-Yes. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-On the drainage off the roof, even though we’re going to put eaves trenches down, I just had, my notes just say drainage off the roof, east side sheds to the septic area. How are you going to handle that shed off? The septic area is on the east side of that building, and you’re going to put an eaves trench underneath there. Right? MR. JONES-We’re putting an eaves trench along the building itself. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but it’s pretty close to the septic area, it looks like, to me, just from taking a look at my notes here. You’ve got the east end of the building, and then you’ve got a septic tank that sits approximately 10 feet from the building. MR. JONES-Yes. The tank is 10 feet from the edge of the building, but the drywells themselves are 20 feet from the foundation. There is a dimension on. MR. VOLLARO-I see the drywell. You’re going to put an infiltration trench along there, not a drywell. There’s going to be an infiltration trench. MR. JONES-The infiltration trench will be along the eaves of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Along the eaves, okay. Now, is that going to take all of the water that finally shed into that septic area? Because it’s close. MR. JONES-The infiltration trench is three feet wide and three feet deep, lined with stone. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’ll handle all the runoff from that shed side? MR. JONES-Yes. We have enough volume, both for storage and infiltration in that area. MR. VOLLARO-I just wanted to make sure, because I knew you were going to put, I figured you had to put a trench there, but I was just wondering whether or not it would handle all the water, being that the septic tank is so close to that area. That’s my question. Now if you discuss this, I noticed it in the, there’s a 10 foot maintenance easement that goes along with, it’s up on the north side of your building. You have it written up there. MR. JONES-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And that comes out of a, I think it comes out of one of the documents that’s, this comes out of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. MR. JONES-Yes, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, your infiltration trench that’s on the north side of the building, that long infiltration trench, the other side of the parking lot. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That feeds the drywell that, just south of that easement by about, the drywell is south of the, the trench is about south of the easement by about a foot, as I measure it. MR. JONES-Yes, that’s correct. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. VOLLARO-Now, how will the maintenance of that system be accomplished? In other words, it gets set in, it’s working. MR. JONES-Of our proposed system? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. How does the long term maintenance of that system get accomplished? I mean, it looks like it’s going to work. It’s a nice system. You’re coming off an infiltration trench. The output of that is going to a pipe down to about 380 elevation, I think. MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. That looks like it’s going to function well, but how are you going to maintain the function of that system? I’m looking for the long term maintenance of the stormwater system. How is that provided for? MR. JONES-In reference to siltation? Is that what you’re? MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, suppose it gets clogged with silt and so on. How does the on-site person who owns this building, how are they obligated to maintain that system? MR. JONES-The drywell has a removable open lid on it. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I know that, mechanically, it can be done. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It can be sucked out, and there’s a lot of ways. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-But who’s got the stick to do that? That’s what I’m asking. MR. JONES-It would be a requirement of the owner, at some point, to maintain that. MR. VOLLARO-Would that be in the deed that’s supplied to the owner? MR. JONES-Not that I’m aware of. Basically, we’re, there’s a 20 foot wide drainage easement, 10 feet of which is on the property for Denise Buher, 10 feet which is on the adjoining property. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, on the other adjoining property. I see that. MR. JONES-That was originally for installation of a drainage line that came off of those two catch basins. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. JONES-And then came to a retention ditch with, again a drainage pipe in that which was all flowing to the west. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and now I think that the covenant and restrictions say that the, I guess it’s got to be the Bay Associates. MR. JONES-Bay Associates. MR. VOLLARO-When they talk about that in their, they talk about their maintenance problem. They say Bay and its agents successors and assigns reserves an easement of 10 foot in width adjustment contiguous to the street line, lot lines of the premises for installation and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) maintenance of utilities. What they stated in here is if they needed to go in, they could, in that easement area, and take care of their maintenance section. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Their drainage section. Now, I’m wondering, on your side of it, the one foot on the other side of that. MR. JONES-Right. MR. VOLLARO-How is that maintenance going to be performed? In other words, these systems need some attention at times, and, you know, I’m trying to figure out how that attention gets paid to those systems. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t it just incumbent upon the property owner to do their maintenance like anything else? MR. JONES-And it would be. Basically, we’ve designed a trench full of stone. It has geo-textile fabric wrapping it. It has the pipe in the middle which is pitching from one end to the other. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see that. It’s a good design. No question about it. I’m just wondering what the maintenance interval is. Do you see what I’m getting at? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just a, I guess it’s a commonsense thing, you know. You have to do it on a regular basis, whether you inspect it annually, or semi-annually or whatever. MR. JONES-Right. I think it’s a lot like a septic tank. Dependent upon the use, you want to pump it out every three years, as a maximum. If it’s a heavy use type system, you want to pump it out possibly six months to twelve months, and I think it’s the type of thing where they’re going to be pulling the lid off the catch basin and basically looking to see if any type of material is infiltrated into that. MR. VOLLARO-Who’s, “they”, though? MR. JONES-It’s going to be the owner of the property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I’m driving at. So it’s incumbent upon the owner to do this maintenance? MR. JONES-Yes. It’s similar to the septic system itself. Again, it’s incumbent upon them to do. MR. VOLLARO-But we don’t state that anywhere. In other words, that’s not a binding issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Under the same scenario, we did it with Home Depot up in the Northway Plaza with those cyclone type infiltrators that they had up there, and that’s a maintenance thing that’s got to be cleaned out periodically, but we didn’t put any stipulations in there you’ve got to do it every six months, every two year or whatever. I mean, it’s a commonsense thing I guess. You’d have to set up your own maintenance program. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’d like it to be a little more restrictive than that, but that’s fine, I guess, if it’s stated somewhere that that’s how the maintenance is done on that. I’ve noticed it, I’ve been looking at some of this maintenance requirements in other towns. That’s what’s leading me to come up with this question, and I’ve got something here from the Town of Bolton where, in their stormwater management plan, they address the maintenance issue of stormwater itself, and I see that that’s a hole in our Ordinance. I haven’t been able to find it. MR. LAPPER-They’re dealing with that because it’s in the lake district. Those are the LGPC reg’s that Queensbury has just for the stuff in the basin, the lake basin, just to distinguish that 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) from this. They’re worried about the resource of Lake George. I mean here it would pond. If there’s a problem with siltation, she’s going to have a drainage issue. So it’s her problem. It’s not like you’re infiltrating, or siltation on the lake. That’s different, but, I mean, your point is well taken. It’s got to be maintained. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. On SP-2, there’s a little thing there called ACC, a square. What is that? MR. JONES-Air Cooled Condenser. MR. VOLLARO-An Air Cooled Condenser. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Cool. All right. Now, on the cut sheets for the lighting, I know you’re going to do the four to one light ratio. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What was your average number, just for curiosity? MR. JONES-The average was two foot candles. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s nothing less than four times two foot candles. Is that the situation? MR. JONES-Right. The minimum is half a foot candle. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’ve got you. Okay. I noticed on your cut sheets, you know, we have a statement in our Chapter 179 Code that talks about a preference for high pressure sodium. I noticed all your cut sheets had that option, and you’ve chosen metal halide. Why, you know, just out of curiosity, why is that? MR. JONES-As an architect? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. JONES-I’d prefer metal halide because it gives a truer color rendition of the colors for the building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JONES-And I think you’ll find it, even at the project that we did at my office, we used the metal halide as well. I don’t necessarily agree with the mercury vapor. It’s just not my preference. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just was wondering about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is one any less expensive than the other to operate? MR. JONES-No, not really. MR. VOLLARO-No. They’re a direct tradeoff in the cut sheets. It’s one to one. All right. Then I just had a note on the landscaping, and I asked for three sugar maples along Blind Rock Road, but you already looked into that as a result of Staff’s input to you. So that’s all the comments I have, Mr. Chairman, on this. MR. MAC EWAN-John? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s start with the sugar maples. I looked at four, because I measured the other two and they were 52 feet apart. So I guess the compromise is three. MR. JONES-Yes. I think the requirement is one per every two hundred fifty lineal feet. So, in essence, we could provide one, I think, along Blind Rock. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, what we have been doing along Bay Road is one per every hundred feet, but just for uniformity, how about three at approximately, you know, 50 to 70 feet apart or something like that. Okay. So that’s good, and another thing, I was just wondering is how about a row of, a hedgerow of Yews or some low lying shrubbery, maybe five or six feet off of the parking lot pavement area. Now, I say along the parking area to partially screen the parking lot area, and to prevent headlight wash, but also mostly a visual reason, and I say five feet off of the parking lot area, but along and adjacent to the parking lot area because, to allow for snow removal, at least in the. MR. MAC EWAN-What side of the parking area are you talking about, though, the east side? MR. LAPPER-The north, or the south side, I think. MR. STROUGH-Yes. The south, well, actually it would be, it would actually be the west side, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Toward the apartment side. MR. STROUGH-Toward the apartment side, you know, maybe about five feet off. I’d do it along your sidewalk, but I’m saying maybe just along there. No problem? MR. LAPPER-Fine. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a fence there, John. What headlight wash are you going to get? MR. STROUGH-What fence? MR. MAC EWAN-I think there’s a fence that separates the apartment building property. He said west side. There’s a fence that separates the apartment complex from there. MR. STROUGH-Let me hold this up for you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Which way are you talking? Where are you putting it? MR. LAPPER-That’s the south side, not the west side. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the south. MR. STROUGH-See, here is Blind Rock Road. I’m suggesting about five feet off of the sidewalk, a row of low lying. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the south side of the parking lot. MR. STROUGH-South side of the parking lot. West side of the building. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. LAPPER-It’s still acceptable to the applicant. That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I think Bob addressed all the stormwater issues, and so did the applicant in the introduction. Now, the lighting style, is that in accord with the adjacent uses, or did you look at what was being used adjacently and pick your lighting to kind of match that? MR. JONES-I think that the Church to the east has more of a commercial box type fixture, and the apartments have very residential type fixtures. MR. MAC EWAN-And the Credit Union as well, and they were all before the new Ordinance went into effect for lighting. So none of those three really comply with the new Ordinance. MR. STROUGH-It wasn’t a big issue with me, either, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Just trying to keep things rolling here, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now your setbacks will be measured from the building or the eaves? MR. JONES-They’re from the eaves. MR. STROUGH-And now you’re proposing a sign, but I didn’t see a detail for that sign, so I don’t know what it looks like. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be conforming. MR. JONES-Yes. We’re looking at something roughly five by ten, double sided. So we’ll be well within the requirements of the Code. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and for the Bay Road, just to know that we’re on the same track, ask for a monument style, set in a landscaped strip. MR. JONES-That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-And that we’ve got the monument. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So there’s no problem there, and the septic system map, and I might be wrong, but I’m looking at Site Plan Two. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I’m looking at septic design box. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And I’m looking at septic design, professional office. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And we have 3.717 square feet times .1 gallon per day, etc. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And under that, 20% reduction. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. JONES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So there’s 372 times .8, and my calculator I get 297.6. MR. JONES-Yes, and somehow we increased it. You’re correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you’re lineal feet is actually less than what you’ve planned for. MR. JONES-Right, and we’re using seepage pits. So we’d probably still need two anyway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you just want to make that correction. Okay. Well, that’s it for me, and thank you, applicant, thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I really have nothing to add. I don’t know if I’m crazy about the west elevation. No, I’m sorry, the east elevation, because I think when you’re coming down Blind Rock Road, it’s going to be an odd hook, but I’m trying to think of some other things we approved in the area, and it’s basically going to be about the same, you know, the look that you have here. MR. LAPPER-We view it that the main, the main traffic flow is going to be on Blind Rock. So that’s really what it was designed to face. MR. METIVIER-Right, and I agree with that. The south elevation looks great. I have to compliment Mr. Jones on these plans because somehow you managed to get every possible thing we need in three sheets, and that’s just unheard of for the Town of Queensbury. So I absolutely applaud you for this. Really, it’s a nice, nice job with these. Everything that we need is right here, and you’re not fumbling around looking for things. So that’s great. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s an opportunity for you to hold some seminars. MR. METIVIER-You’d put the Town out of business, but that’s all right. No, really, it’s, you know, overall it seems to be a nice plan. I don’t have anything else to add. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I think it’s a very nice project. A very suitable location and I’m fine with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No comments. It looks good. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Very nice. It sits nicely on that piece of property. Just one thing. I just thought of something else. When do you expect to have this completed? MR. JONES-July of this year. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Great. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. HILTON-We do have just one piece of correspondence. It’s evidently a mailing that went out to BRB Group, and at the bottom they just returned their notice and said BRB has no objection and supports approval. That’s all we have. MR. LAPPER-That’s the adjacent land owner to the south. MS. RADNER-Staff has, in one case, identified this as an Unlisted, and in another place as a Type II. I think for consistency’s sake, this should be treated as an Unlisted tonight. The applicant did submit, actually both the Short and the Long form. I think you can do the Short Form, for purposes of the SEQRA, but before you close the public hearing, if somebody wanted to comment on the SEQRA application. MR. MAC EWAN-Takers? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a SEQRA, please. Have we got the SEQRA determination correct on the next couple of applications as well? MS. RADNER-They appear to be. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 12-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DENISE BUHER, PT, and 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 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25 day of February, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to talk about a motion for a minute, or has somebody got something in mind? MR. VOLLARO-I’m written up. I think I can go from here, Mr. Chairman. MR. RINGER-I’ve got one already done. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. Go for it, Larry. MR. RINGER-Mine’s very simple. I think I’ve covered all the items. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead. You do it. MR. RINGER-I’d make a motion to approve site plan number 12-2003 for Denise Buher, as resolution prepared by Staff, with the following conditions. Condition One, three sugar maples will be placed along the Blind Rock Road. Condition Two, site plan will be changed to address C.T. Male comments Two, Four, Five, and Six of their letter of 2/29, and Condition Three, a hedge to be put on the west, put in on the west of the building and south of the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-On that hedge, how long, how big? MR. RINGER-The length of the parking lot, and I didn’t feel we had to put the height in. MR. LAPPER-The rear length of the parking lot. MR. RINGER-Yes, the rear, that’s what I said, south of the parking lot. MR. LAPPER-The west of the building. MR. STROUGH-It’ll be, if you want to stay out of the way of the landscaping alongside of the building, it’s going to be about 40 feet, because the entire thing is about 45 feet. So you want to stay a little way away from the building. So it’s about 40 feet, and I’ve got other problems with the conditions. MR. RINGER-You’ve got more conditions than that? MR. STROUGH-Well, I think you’ve got to be more specific about the trees. MR. RINGER-I don’t think so, but that’s the way I would prepare the motion to keep it simple and leave it up to them to put the sugar maples in. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically we nail a caliper size. MR. VOLLARO-Four inch diameter caliper. MR. STROUGH-To go along with what’s already there. Sugar maples, and he has four inch diameter on the planting schedule. It’s not us. It’s what the applicant proposes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. STROUGH-We figured that they should be 20 feet from the right of way, as these are here, so there’s uniformity. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, how far away are you guys away from finishing your motion here? MR. VOLLARO-We were almost done. MR. MAC EWAN-Finish it up. Let’s go with it. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t you want to go with Larry’s? MS. RADNER-Have Mr. Ringer withdraw his then. MR. RINGER-Well, I didn’t get a second. So it’s not a motion. So, go ahead, Bob. MR. METIVIER-I would second it. MR. SANFORD-I’d second it. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to withdraw it, because I do want to be specific with caliper size and stuff. That’s the way we tag stuff. MR. RINGER-I’ll withdraw the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2003 DENISE BUHER, PT, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 12-2003 Applicant: Denise Buher, PT Type II Property Owner: Bay Associates c/o Frank DeSantis, Esq. Agent: Richard E. Jones Associates & Jonathan Lapper Zone: PO Location: Hunterbrook Lane, Lot # 5 Applicant proposes construction of a 3,717 sq. ft. professional office. Professional Offices in a PO zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 5-89, SB 21-89, AV 14-2003 Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/03 Tax Map No. 289.15-1-2 Lot size: 0.96 acres / Section: 179-4-020, 179-4-030 Public Hearing: February 25, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 2/19/03, and 2/20 C.T Male engineering comments received 2/19 Staff Notes 2/19 ZBA resolution 2/18 Long Form EAF received from agent 2/18 Notice of Public Hearing 2/13 Warren Co. Planning 2/5 Meeting Notice 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on February 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 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 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. 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: 1. That a four to one uniformity ratio will be added to the drawing. 2. The infiltration trenches on either side of the roof will be identified on the drawing. 3. Adjoining properties will be noted in the final drawing. 4. The maintenance of the stormwater system will be accomplished by the owner. 5. That three sugar maples of four inch diameter spaced at approximately forty feet apart along Blind Rock Road, approximately twenty feet from the right of way. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Finally, you’re all set. Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. JONES-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 8-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED ANGELO & ANNE CATALFAMO ZONE: PO LOCATION: 667 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF BAY ROAD APARTMENTS TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. PROFESSIONAL OFFICES IN A PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SPECIAL USE PERMIT 102 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-14 LOT SIZE: 3.78 ACRES SECTION: ART. 9 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHUCK CATALFAMO, PRESENT 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 8-2003, Angelo & Anne Catalfamo, Meeting Date: February 25, 2003 “ Project Description: The applicant proposes to convert previously used apartments into office space. The site plan also proposes the expansion of the existing gravel parking area and associated stormwater management facilities. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? . Professional Offices require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No increased burden on public services or facilities is anticipated as a result of this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Additional comment on parking and vehicular circulation will be provided in the Staff Comments section of this document. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. No changes to the building locations are proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Overall vehicular access should be safe and efficient. Staff has some concerns about access in the area just south of the dumpster enclosure, which will be discussed further in these notes. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. Comments on parking will be provided later in this document. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian walkways exist to serve people accessing the buildings on this site. An extension of the existing walkway just south of and adjacent to the proposed parking lot expansion would be beneficial to visitors parking in the expanded parking area. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan, which will be reviewed by CT Male. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Water service through the municipal water system will be provided. Currently this property is not within a sanitary sewer district. An on-site septic system will be constructed to serve this property. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has submitted a waiver request from providing a landscaping plan. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Adequate provisions and access points exist for fire and emergency response for this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to convert three existing apartment buildings into professional offices as well as expand an existing gravel parking area. This property is located on Bay Rd. across from ACC in the Bay Road Design Guideline Area. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which addresses the proposed gravel parking lot expansion. This plan has been submitted to CT Male for review and comment. The applicant has submitted a request for the following waivers: Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - If a waiver from providing a landscaping plan is acceptable to the Planning Board, Planning Staff suggests that the applicant identify what on-site vegetation will remain or include language on the Site Plan that no further vegetation will be cleared. Retention of existing trees along Bay Rd. and other areas of this site would be in accordance with the Bay Road Design Guidelines and the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Staff has some concerns over some of the parking spaces identified just to the south of the existing dumpster enclosure. The two spaces just to the south and west of the dumpster and the four spaces near the mailbox do not have the required 18 foot length. The access drive in this area is not 24 ft. in width as required by the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, parking and vehicular access could be a problem in this area of the site. Staff suggests that these spaces be removed from the plan and not be used, as the use of these spaces may impact vehicles entering and exiting the site. Elimination of these spaces would bring the total number of parking spaces shown on the plan down to 32. Based on the building square footage provided by the applicant, 36 spaces are required. In order to satisfy parking requirements, the applicant could widen the parking area further to the west to create 4 additional spaces. Additional hard surfacing must remain 50 feet away from the shoreline of Old Maids Brook. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) As a general note, the recent aerial photos for this area indicate some outside storage and debris located on site. If this debris is in fact still on the property, it should be cleaned up and organized as required by Chapter 96 of the Town Code. SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted, a short form has been submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MR. HILTON-As previously stated, the applicant proposes to convert three existing apartment buildings to professional offices. Previously a waiver request was submitted for providing a stormwater management report. However, such a report has been provided and C.T. Male has reviewed it and has provided comments on the report. Other waivers that have been requested, however, are grading plan, lighting plan, and landscaping plan. If a waiver from providing the landscaping plan is acceptable to the Planning Board, Staff suggests that either a note that the vegetation will not be removed from the site or some kind of identification as to which, what vegetation will not be removed should be added to this plan, as this property is in the Bay Road Design Guidelines area, and street trees and vegetation and landscaping requirements are applicable to this site and we would suggest that you identify that. Also, there are some concerns from Planning staff on the parking spaces shown on the driveway entry. They seem to be a little too small on the plan. If you lengthen them out to the correct size, there would be some conflicts with vehicles exiting and entering the site, as well as vehicles parking on site. Based on the building square footage, if you eliminate the spaces in the front there on the entry drive, they would need to create four additional spaces. This could be done by expanding the parking as they’ve proposed a little farther to the west, picking up those four spaces. However, any additional hard surfacing must remain 50 feet away from Old Maid’s Brook. Just as a general note, recently aerial photos of the one that you see here show some debris and outside storage, which, if it’s still there, should be organized and conform to Chapter 96 of the Town Code. That’s all I have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-How long ago was that photo taken? Obviously before snow, but. MR. HILTON-April 2001. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. The floor is yours. MR. CATALFAMO-Okay. My name is Chuck Catalfamo. Angelo’s my real name, but everybody knows me as Chuck. Concerning the debris first. A lot of that is building materials. I just did a number of renovations to the outside of the building. I fixed it up, and some of that is palettes of material that we had left over, and some of it is (lost words) insulation. The winter sort of ate it up a little bit, but that’s the white part out by Old Maid’s Brook. It’s quite a ways away from Old Maid’s Brook really, but that’s the white, the big white area there, and that will be cleaned up. We did a number of things to the yard. The landscaping, I had a landscaper come in, a professional landscaper come in, and he re-did all the, we put new sidewalks in, heated sidewalks, and he came and landscaped last fall. So it’s all landscaped around the courtyard with all new shrubs and flowers in there. All the shrubs that were there, I have re- used them. So I’ve added to the shrubs. I put those out across the street by the other side of my parking lot that is there now. So we have a lot more shrubs, and I think when the snow goes away, you’ll notice that it’ll look nice. The parking lot, I was a little bit concerned about the parking lot, making it too big, but four more spots doesn’t bother me. It’s pretty simple to add four more spots. I measured that tonight, and I had 44 feet from the curb to the end of my drive, or to the blacktop. So I didn’t know. I thought that was okay, but also I’m going to be blacktopping the new parking facility that we’re adding on the 18 spots. So I’m going to be re- blacktopping that, and the old, and the new, so I could even widen that up a couple of more feet across the parking lot, if that would help traffic coming in. Lighting. I haven’t got it on at night because I don’t have anybody living there, but I do have all new lighting in the parking lot. I 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) have three 25 foot poles, and now with the new parking I might put another one. I had, that’s, in that debris that you see out there, I have two more lights that are laying out there, that I was going to put up. So I will put one more of those lights up probably now that I’m making the parking lot larger, and our grading, this was three buildings that we had before. There were 12 apartment units, and it was formerly used as student housing. So I’ve always had a lot of students, I’ve always had a full parking lot there and never had a real problem with anybody hitting, you know, anybody, even with kids, I never had anything serious happen there, but I guess the grading will pretty much stay the same, except for some additional drainage that we’ve designed for the additional parking. There was a couple of concerns about the surface water from the parking. So I had Tom Jarrett design that, and he could talk about that, if you’d like to ask any questions about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. CATALFAMO-I think so. Tom, anything you wanted to add? MR. JARRETT-No, not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is this in a PO zone? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the zoning information on the plan has to be changed because it’s still multifamily, which I think it’s still multifamily, which I think it used to be. So that has to change. Well, I know this is pre-existing, but, you know, this professional office development on Bay Road, we’ve held the other applicants to, well, pretty higher standards than what we got. In other words, we did get a landscaping plan. We got a lighting plan, and I didn’t get those. So I’m having MR. CATALFAMO-Excuse me. I have lighting on my drawing. There’s lighting on the drawing. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know, but it doesn’t show the uniformity ratios. It doesn’t show the lumens. I mean, it doesn’t tell me much, other than you have lighting there, but it doesn’t show me what areas are lit or not lit. Because one of our jobs is to address, well, public safety, to make sure there is enough lighting, to make sure that the lighting is not too much lighting, it’s not excessive for the adjacent uses, and so it doesn’t negatively impact that. I can’t address those issues because I don’t have that information, and the landscaping, the Bay Road corridor, of course, has landscaping design standards that we’ve been abiding by, and I can’t tell if this meets that or not because I don’t see a landscaping plan here, and I drove up, as I saw you measuring it out when I drove up tonight, to see, you know, what was in front of the place and what kind of geography is there, because we’ve been asking for sidewalks, but the geography in front of your place doesn’t lend itself to that very well. So I wouldn’t hold you to that, but I would like to see some kind of landscaping plan, but I might be alone in this, and another thing is, when looking at your stormwater plan, usually I like to see the finished product, what the current grading is, what the current spot elevations are, and then usually I get what the future spot elevations are going to be, especially if we’re going to be re-paving this, to assure that the flow goes in the stormwater devices that we have designed to receive them, and I get no assurances from that, by looking at your stormwater plan which has no spot elevations to assure me, or the contractor that’s doing the job for you, that the flow is, in fact, going to go to this stormwater device you propose at the southern end. I don’t know that, and I know it was a formal group of apartments. You’ve already got the sidewalks in there. The buildings are there. I’m just, I’m kind of having a tough time of where should I set the standard. Should I go a little bit easier with you as I’ve been very tough with the other applicants that have been before me, in reference to the development of professional offices along Bay Road. We do have, I don’t know if you’ve read through them, the Bay Road Design Standards, okay, which I have 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) right here. It’s 179-7-040, speaks of the Bay Road corridor and the design standards and landscaping standards for this corridor, okay. Okay. So, you know what I’m going to do? I’m going to listen to my other Planning Board members, see what they have to say, and let that, I guess, kind of be my guide. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I’m finished, and thank you, applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I know this will come as a shock to everybody here, but I have to agree with John that I think this is a perfect opportunity for us to look at this application, because Bay Road has become very attractive, and we’ve worked very hard at making everything along Bay Road look attractive, and no offense to you, of course, but I’ve never found this, these buildings to be attractive, and I wouldn’t use the words eyesore, because it’s not an eyesore, but it stands, it needs some improvement, and this will be the only opportunity that we have to improve upon this site. So I, too, am in favor of some type of landscaping plan, and I would also like to see any debris that’s in the area be removed, either as part of the approval, or prior to the approval. So I do agree with John. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I appreciate John’s comments as well. I think the stormwater, though, I mean, what I read, when I read through the notes and what have you, it looks like C.T. Male seems to be relatively comfortable with it, with the proposed plan, and the February 14 letter th does a nice job, and I think because of the winter conditions, there’s some tests or something that haven’t been done, but otherwise it seems to be adequate. So I’m reasonably comfortable with that, unless I’m missing something here. Could I ask you a question about, there’s so much professional office buildings being built along Bay Road, what’s the intended use for this? What kind of offices do you expect? MR. CATALFAMO-Well, we only have, on the bottom floors we only have like 1200 square feet for each half of the building. We have a little upstairs that is not really going to be for use for the clients of, you know, that’ll be just for storage. So it’ll be like for a possible architect or a doctor’s office, a draftsman, you know, something in that line. We haven’t sent out anything yet. MR. SANFORD-I’m just wondering where the demand for all this office space is coming from. Now I know that we have a lot of senior housing in close proximity, and I’m wondering, the last applicant, you know, is obviously going to be doing physical therapy, which of course is a function, I’m sure, of an aging population, but that’s one right after another, and I was just wondering what you thought would (lost words). MR. CATALFAMO-Well, with all the, I owned all that land a while back. I owned the nursing home land, and I sold that years ago, and everything is geared in that area for older people, like the land in back of me now is all going to be assisted living, and I had it for years. I did what the College wanted me to do. I built student housing, and it paid for the buildings, but that was when, it was an eyesore, because kids, it was a very, you could see everything that the kids were doing there, and it was tough keeping it up with the kids, but now I expect to, if you’ve been by there in the fall, we did the, all the outside of the buildings over. I put all new windows in. I put 30 year shingles on the roof. I did all new roofing. I put a new sidewalk in with heat in it, with stamped concrete entrances, and around the brick courtyard, that’s all stamped concrete, red brick stamped concrete, and it’s all got heat in it. So we’re trying to, you know, we’re spending the extra dollars to try to do something nice. I just hope that we can rent them. MR. SANFORD-Plenty of professionals are going to want to rent space here. MR. CATALFAMO-I know it, but, geez, I’m doing work for Mr. Schermerhorn all the time, and he’s just going, I’m just doing this one little thing, is all I’m doing. I’m not doing it all over the place. I’ve owned this for 22 years. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything to add. It’s unfortunate at the time of year we really can’t see what the landscaping is there, or it may change some of our thoughts and our ideas tonight. MR. CATALFAMO-We have all the red chips all around the whole court, all around the courtyard with all new shrubs, and I had them done twice, because we did them earlier in the summer, and we lost a lot of them. MR. MAC EWAN-Did your landscaper that you hired submit a plan to you, a landscaping plan that you went by? MR. CATALFAMO-No. We just went up with him, and we already had it in there. So we tore out everything that was in there, and he just put all brand new things in, because if you were ever through there, there was big shrubs, and I transplanted them out by the shed across the street there, because they were like 12, 14, 15 feet high on the buildings and they were just too big. So we took them out, but they’re still on site. A number of the shrubs that we had in the front, not the shrubs, but those, we had a whole bunch of trees. I put those on the bank, on the bank side to sort of give it a buffer to the road. I got five or six of those along that ditch, and that ditch, I clean that every year, but, you know, that’s just a ditch where everything goes in that ditch, from Bay Road, but I’ve been trying to keep that clean. So I did put some trees in there, and it’s a buffer, for a buffer zone for that. MR. RINGER-It does make our job more difficult without a landscaping plan, though. For Tom, if he replaces that crushed stone driveway, or parking lot, excuse me, with the paved, is that going to affect stormwater, your report any? MR. JARRETT-Yes, it will, actually. We probably would have to enlarge the ditch slightly, or provide a little bit more swale area, but not drastically. We don’t generally take a lot of credit for crushed stone, because over time it compacts and silts in, but there is a slight credit over asphalt. So we would have to modify it a little bit. MR. RINGER-That’s it, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-When I found out that this was going to be made into offices, I thought that was a wonderful idea, and I think that, again, the three buildings with the courtyard has a lot of potential for this kind of use. However, I have to go along with John. I feel that we really, I would like a landscaping plan before I can vote affirmative on this site plan, and you have done a good job describing what you have there, but I would like to see it drawn, before I, because that’s the way we’ve been going along, the way we’ve been operating along, not only Bay Road but in the entire Town, for a long time now, and if there, indeed, needs to be a modification in Tom’s stormwater management plan because of the extra blacktop, I would like to see that also, and I have one other question. I think it’s great that you put in the new windows and you have a new roof done. What is the façade? I just can’t picture it. MR. CATALFAMO-It is all textured block. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I thought. Colored textured block. It looks like stone. It’s a stone look. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. CATALFAMO-And we have brick corners, and we have all brick corners on the buildings. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I thought there was brick, yes. Okay. The more attractive it is, the quicker you’re going to be able to, it’ll appeal more to professional people. MR. CATALFAMO-I wish you could have seen it, I should have taken pictures of it last fall, but we reseeded the whole courtyard. I tore it all out and reseeded the whole thing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But would it be that much of a problem to just give us a plan with whatever the trees are? MR. CATALFAMO-I don’t know what we use, but I can find out from. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, I would feel a lot better about that, but I think that it’s a great use for these buildings. So, I really feel that we have to be strict about the landscaping, just because that’s the route we’ve taken, and it’s kind of been our new philosophy. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go from my notes again. John covered the PO, the change to the PO zone. I thought that for a clarification on the plan, we should probably show the 75 foot setback on Bay Road, although it doesn’t apply to this, since this is pre-existing, but I think the plan ought to at least show that. As far as the parking is concerned, I can see where we would be adding those four spaces out to the west of the property, and I think that’s probably a good idea. I agree on extending the walk, and the walk could probably be extended over. I know that shed’s going to be removed, and I would propose that that walk be extended all the way across so that people using spaces where the shed is now can reach it easily, rather than the walk stopping where it does. There are no septic construction details. Now, in Staff’s notes indicates construction for the septic. What is the situation on that north side of that building, as far as the construction of septic is concerned? Is that an existing system, or? MR. CATALFAMO-That’s a raised system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s functioning now? MR. CATALFAMO-Yes, it is. That was designed for 50 students, or 12 bathrooms, and I’m cutting it down to no more, I took out the showers. So it’s just going to be sinks in the lower level, and one shower up above. I won’t need much water. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to leave the septic system up to our Building Inspectors, but I think that somebody has to take a look and see that that the existing system, based on its age, how old is it? MR. CATALFAMO-Twenty years. MR. VOLLARO-Twenty years old. MR. CATALFAMO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Whether or not that would be adequate for this new project or not. I think we’d have to leave that up to the Building Department, Mr. Hatin to come in with his x-ray vision. MR. RINGER-That would probably be less usage than apartments, probably. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, I realize that, but it’s also got 20 years of service on it. MR. CATALFAMO-I mean, there was 50 students in there before I, 50 students in there. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. VOLLARO-So that’s a pretty healthy use, 50 students, a fairly healthy use for a septic system. I’d just like to see that. I’m going to, in my notes, I ask for a lighting plan and a four to one uniformity ratio, that we know what the uniformity ratio on that site is, and a landscaping plan as well. I feel we need that in order to adequately review this, and the plan should be consistent with the Bay Road Design Guidelines, and I think Mr. Strough gave you a reference to those guidelines a little bit ago. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we jump back to your lighting plan for a second? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Chuck, you said you put in new lights? MR. CATALFAMO-I have all new lights. MR. MAC EWAN-Do they conform with the new Zoning Ordinance for lighting? MR. CATALFAMO-I believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a cutoff? Or cut sheets available of them? MR. CATALFAMO-I can get some. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. CATALFAMO-And I also have the lighting in the courtyards and brick piers with lights on them, and I bought all new lights for those. I just haven’t put them all up yet because the kids would take them down a month after I put them up. So the new one’s I’ve got. MR. VOLLARO-There’s some general lighting standards in the piece that Mr. Strough gave you, there’s lighting standards for parking lots and stuff like that that should be adhered to. You can take a look at those, and then you get us an average of that light, and then you get a four to one ratio based on that average. I’m sure to be looking at that. Now, I notice that it’s interesting in statement number two that C.T. Male makes, it just interested me, and I underlined it. It says providing that the swale and trench system is maintained, again here’s where the maintenance aspect of these kinds of systems come into play, we see no problem in the 50 year storm being handled by the system. He agrees with your stormwater plan, but he also tosses that maintenance idea in there, as well, that it’s got to be maintained, again. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that something we’ve been doing for the 10 years I’ve been on this Board. I mean, there has to be some sort of responsibility put on the land owner to be able to maintain their own premises. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that, in the motion, I think that we ought to just at least let the land owner know that we expect that to happen. There are other ways to ensure for that, Craig. We want to maybe some day talk about that in a workshop or something like that. I think that might be something we may want to do. MR. JARRETT-If I could address that right now? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-Digress a little bit, but the stormwater plans that are prepared within the park have to follow the same requirements that you were mentioning for Bolton. The Town of Queensbury standards within the Lake George Park have the same maintenance agreement requirements that you’re referring to in Bolton. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. JARRETT-And the committee that prepared the stormwater plan for the Town recommended that the Town consider it for the entire Town. So you may want to go back and. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know that. That’s why I asked the Chairman if we could talk about this in a workshop, because I’ve just reviewed all of that. You’re absolutely right. MR. JARRETT-And then there’s a contractual requirement that the owner maintain these systems. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s the reason for asking for the, I didn’t want to bring it all up there, but since the applicant has talked about, that’s part of what I want to talk about. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll set up a workshop. MR. VOLLARO-And I have just some general comments that probably don’t even really even apply to this so much, but it’s my drumbeat on the Bay Road. We now have the Church. We’ve got the Cedars. We’ve got this site. We’ve got Adirondack Manor. We’ve got ACC. We’ve got the thing that’s coming up with Schermerhorn and so on. I really think we’ve got to look at maybe getting back to the County to look at a warrant for a light along that Bay Road sooner or later. I mean, that Bay Road is going to eventually need a light. MR. STROUGH-They’re doing a traffic study, aren’t they, George? MR. HILTON-That’s a good question. I’m not aware of any. They may be. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris and I had sent a letter to Bill Remington, probably back in mid- December. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t gotten a reply yet. MR. VOLLARO-I think their position is there’s no warrant for a light. I mean, I think Tom Nace looked into that, some time ago, a member of the audience is shaking his head there. Yes, I think Tom Nace looked into that and determined from the County’s reply there is no warrant for a light. MR. MAC EWAN-Because I don’t think they’re really understanding the impact of the developments, proposed projects or projects that are already in the works, or projects that are already being built, and what the build out’s going to be on them. So maybe it’s time to send them another letter with some math behind it showing why we feel we need to have it. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a good idea, and that doesn’t apply, necessarily, to this, but this is looking at another installation on the Bay Road, and, Mr. Chairman, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s talk about landscaping. That seems to be an issue everyone is concerned about. MR. VOLLARO-I think there has to be a landscaping plan here, definitely, for us to determine whether, that all ties into the Bay Road Design Guidelines, as to whether or not this will come up to those standards or not, and the lighting is the same way. There’s some uniformity ratios that have to be shown, and also that in the lighting section of our Code it talks a little bit about the amount of light that’s going to be needed in foot candles at this, and it comes down to uses of commercial parking lots, for example, and this might be what, they talk about 2.5 foot candles of horizontal lumination. That’s got to be shown on the plan, so we know that it at least conforms to our lighting standards. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone just looking for verification of what he’s got now, or are you looking for more? Do you have other ideas? MRS. LA BOMBARD-If we know what he has now, then we can tell whether or not we would like more landscaping, but we really don’t know what’s there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So what I’m hearing is three things. One, you want verification of what the landscaping is, the new landscaping is put on the property. You need to re-do your stormwater management to take into effect that you’re extending the parking area by four spaces is what you’re looking at, and the fact that it has to be paved, because that’ll have to adjust the stormwater management plan, and we’re looking for a lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-They’re looking to take out four spaces, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re looking to take out four by the mailbox, and add four to the west end of the parking lot where the shed is. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Chuck, what are the three small pads, the concrete pads behind each of the apartment buildings? MR. CATALFAMO-That’s a little picnic table. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. CATALFAMO-That’s a real nice picnic table. It’s for whoever is working there, if they want to go out for, and they’re all hidden from sight from the front, but they’re real nice. They’ve got a little, they’re real nice. MR. MAC EWAN-And then you’ve got one larger concrete pad very close to the building. What is that? MR. CATALFAMO-That was for a bicycle, in between, you mean in the back? That was a basketball court. That’s already gone, in the back here. Yes, right here in back. That was a basketball court. I thought you meant in here. There’s also a bicycle. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There’s one right there. MR. CATALFAMO-That’s a bicycle rack. It was for bicycles. When I had students, they’d lock their bike up, but I could leave that, or I could take that out pretty easy. It’s too bad you couldn’t get a blow up of the courtyard, because the shrubs that are there now, there’s a lot of nice shrubs in there now, in that picture, and I’ve done them all over. They’ve all been, and I’ve even done some on the sides. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you get together with your landscaper, document what he put in? MR. CATALFAMO-Yes. Sure. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HILTON-All we have is BRB Group again saying no objections, and they support approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to take five minutes and come up with a motion to table? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve almost got it, I think. Do we have a motion, Bob? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and we’re going to table it to a date to be announced at the end of this, we’ll figure what that is. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s going to be April. MR. HILTON-Probably April. We’ve missed the March deadline, and we’re pretty packed for March. MR. VOLLARO-What is the first meeting in April? MR. MAC EWAN-Put him on for the second meeting of April. MR. HILTON-We can just say the second meeting. It’s the fourth Tuesday. I don’t have a date on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll tell you in a second. I’ve got it right here. April, the third and the fourth, the first one is the 15 and the second meeting is the 22, because the first is on a thnd Tuesday. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll propose to table this to the 22. nd MRS. LA BOMBARD-The second meeting? MR. VOLLARO-The second meeting, on the 22 of April. nd MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. CATALFAMO-Excuse me. Is there any way I can get on the March? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve already missed the deadline for submittals. They’re in the middle of the month. Sorry. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 8-2003 ANGELO & ANNE CATALFAMO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Tabled to April 22. In addition, we’re going to ask that the tabling be based on: nd 1. Providing a new lighting plan. 2. A landscaping plan that conforms to the Bay Road design standards shown in Ordinance 179. 3. A revised stormwater plan, based on the addition of some blacktop, because of a new parking proposal. 4. I’d like to see a statement from Building and Codes regarding the septic tank. This septic tank’s been in use for 20 years and I think I’d like Building and Codes to just take a look at it and say, yes, it will function or no it won’t, or what the story is with septic. 5. Change the plan to read Professional Office as opposed to Multifamily Residential. 6. Show the removal of four spaces on the eastern side of the plot, and adding of four spaces to the western side of it, closest to Old Maid’s Brook, but no closer than 50 feet, as far as the shoreline is concerned. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) 7. Show the extension of the walkway that’s currently on the heated concrete walk and extended to the west, to end wherever the spaces end. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. We’ll see you in April. MR. CATALFAMO-Thank you. We’ll be back. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 TYPE II NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: CEDAR HOLDING ASSOCIATES AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON, PE ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 713 GLEN STREET, 302.6-1-10, 0.44 ACRES APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,244 SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING AND SITE. RESTAURANT IN AN HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 98-2002 (12/18/02) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-2003, North Star Donut Group, LLC, Meeting Date: February 25, 2003 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the demolition and reconstruction of a 2244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts along with associated site lighting, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use is allowed in the HC-Int zone. The application received an Area Variance from the ZBA for relief from the Travel Corridor Overlay setbacks and shoreline setbacks. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No burden on public services and facilities is anticipated as a result of this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Traffic and circulation issues will be discussed later in this document. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The location and arrangement of proposed buildings, etc. appears to present an overall compatible site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Traffic circulation issues will be commented on later in this document. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of parking spaces proposed meets Zoning Ordinance requirements. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The proposed site plan provides a walkway for pedestrian access from the parking area located in the front of the property to the new building. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management plan that has been referred to CT Male for review and comment. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This site is served by municipal water and sanitary sewer service. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan including additional vegetation for this site. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Adequate provisions and access points exist for fire and emergency response for this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) Impacts of this type are not anticipated at this location. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 98-2002, resolved 12/18/2002; travel corridor and shoreline setback relief Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 2244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts restaurant. The new building would replace what currently exists at this location. The Site Plan also proposes new lighting, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. The proposed Site Plan will meet side and rear yard setbacks. This application was granted an Area Variance by the ZBA granting relief from the Travel Corridor and Shoreline setbacks. The applicant proposes additional landscaping and green space at the front of the property along Route 9. This will replace the existing pavement along the east property line. The applicant also proposes additional plantings along the building as well as a green area on the western area of the site to serve as a stormwater infiltration area. Overall, the amount of green space will increase at this location. The lighting plan submitted with the application indicates 4 pole-mounted lights to be used around the property. Are these poles new additions to the site? Are any building mounted lights proposed? Cutoff sheets must be provided for proposed lighting and any building mounted lights must also be shown on the proposed plan. Pole mounting heights should also be stated on the plan. The lighting plan submitted indicates some light spill onto neighboring properties. NYSDOT has prepared some comments (for the Planning Board’s consideration) concerning access management for this site. Based on this memo, the parking area on the north side of the proposed front walkway, closest to Route 9, is unacceptable. If this space were eliminated based on DOT’s recommendation, the number of parking spaces provided will not meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. Another access management issue at this site concerns vehicle stacking and parking conflicts during peak hours. There may also be some concern from property owners to the west about the ability to access their property through this site at peak times or during delivery of supplies for the restaurant. Consideration should also be given to providing for potential future access to the property to the south. As has been done with other commercial site plans, a note could be added to the plan indicating future access to the property to the south along the south property line of this site. Any comments from CT Male, Town Water Dept. and the Town Wastewater Dept. should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: Type: II, no further action required.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Yes. The application here before you is to construct a new approximately 2200 square foot Dunkin Donuts with new lighting, landscaping. This application was granted an Area Variance previously from the ZBA granting relief from the Travel Corridor and Shoreline 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) setbacks. Additional landscaping and green space at the front of the property is proposed along Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-George, can I interrupt you just for a second? Just so everyone knows, Site Plan 8-2003, the one we just tabled, I’ve left that public hearing open. I don’t know if people heard me or not. Sorry about that. MR. HILTON-Four pole mounted lights are to be used on the property and they’re shown on the plan. Cut sheets, at the time of the writing of these notes, had not been provided. We just received some cut sheets today. The plans should be revised to show any building mounted lighting as well. New York State DOT has prepared some comments for the Board’s consideration, and based on those comments, the parking space on the north side of the new parking area closest to Route 9 would have to be eliminated. That presents as problem in that they would not meet the required number of parking spaces if this were. MR. LAPPER-We think that’s not true. We can eliminate that. We’ll go through that. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We think we can eliminate that without needing a variance. MR. HILTON-Okay. Access management issues on this property include the stacking of vehicles, the drive through, access to properties that gain access through this site and potentially connecting and providing future access to the property to the south and any consideration for elimination or consolidation of curb cuts to make Route 9 more manageable and produce less traffic, vehicular conflicts. Any comments from C.T. Male, Town Water Department or Wastewater, and any other agencies should be addressed during the review of this application, and that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Garry Robinson, Project Engineer, and Tom and Jerry Burke are with us over there to answer any operational questions. They are the new owners of the Dunkin Donuts in the region, and this is a site that we refer to as functionally obsolescent. We have, obviously, a very small site. We’ve got a pretty terrible looking building and a pretty terrible building for operational purposes, and what we’re attempting to do with this site plan on this admittedly small site is to be able to increase the green space, knock down the building, and build a brand new building that would be more attractive than what we have here, add a drive through, which is really important to their operations, and in terms of, one of the major benefits of this for the Town, right now, the stormwater is sheet flowing right onto Glen Street, and we would be doing a subsurface drainage system and constructing a manhole within the DOT right of way at pretty substantial cost to the applicants, so that the drainage line can hook into the existing line that’s within the State right of way. There’s also the issue of the stream channel on the back of the property, and after meeting with Staff before we submitted to the Board, Garry came up with a new plan, at Staff’s suggestion, to have some detention so that the water, right now it just sheet flows into that stream, and now it’s going to be captured and detained so that it can be cleaned a little bit before it goes in, and most of the water is now going to go forward into the underground system. So that, plus the fact that we’re adding green space, compared to what’s there now, and we’ve talked to DOT and we understand their comment about the parking space. It’s always been that way. Obviously Route 9’s become more crowded. The applicant would rather not give up a space, but DOT wants that to happen. So the idea would be to eliminate that first space on the access drive. No one would back out into Route 9, but you’d back out into the driveway, and it probably is, admittedly, safer to get rid of that space. So we would then propose to. MR. MAC EWAN-Which space are you referring to, the north one or the south one? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. LAPPER-North. We would replace that with green space. Another issue that you’ve seen the correspondence and I’m sure we’re going to hear about. We’ve got an unhappy neighbor behind us. I’m sure everyone on the Board is familiar with how that site works. It’s, you know, certainly not the best access that they could have for their rental business in the back, but that’s the way it’s been for probably a couple of decades. We’re not making it any worse than it is now. They will still have a Dunkin Donuts in front of them, but we’re certainly going to clean up this site. So we hope the Board can look at this and see the positives, even though, you know, if we were starting off from scratch with a twice the size site that would be fine also, but we don’t have that possibility here. I guess, to start out with, I’ll ask Garry to walk you through the site plan and also to go through the parking calculations, just so we can clarify that with George, that we feel that we can eliminate that space without needing a parking variance. MR. ROBINSON-I kind of put this plan together so that you could see where the existing building is compared to the new building on the site. The existing building is about 1500 square feet and the proposed one is 2200 square feet. The purple right here is the existing building that would be coming down, and this white outline that’s around it is a concrete sidewalk that runs around the entire site. The building itself is, the 1500 square feet, doesn’t include the sidewalk or the concrete around the outside. The orange building right here is what we would replace the existing one with. The back line is about 15 feet in front of the back of the original building, and we have some green areas around the back of the building that lead you around the drive through and around the back of the building, and that whole parcel of what we’re doing there is about five feet in front of the existing building. So the building has moved forward a little, in the back as well as in the front. Right now on the site, there’s 19 spaces existing. What we’ve done by moving the building up in the front is eliminate some of those spaces that are there. We’ve gone down to 15 spaces. The zoning requirements for parking for this site is one space for every four seats, and one space for every two employees. We have 26 spaces. There’s actually a building plan, I’m sorry, 26 seats. There’s actually a building plan in the back of the sets that we’ve given you that indicates those, where those 26 seats are, and at any one time, we have six employees on site. So that would be a total of ten spaces. I think what happened was, as we were going through this, we were looking at the number of spaces that we could get on the site, and that’s where that 15 base came from. That was what we could get on the site, and that’s what we’re trying to get on the site. If we have to eliminate one, we’re still within the zoning requirements. The entryway is pretty much the same, and going through the site is pretty much the same as it is right now. What we’re doing is we’re changing the front, putting in a little more green space. The sidewalk and the curbing that are out there are pretty much dilapidated and they need some repair. So we’re going to put in a new green area in the front. We’re going to take out, right now there’s an existing planting area that’s in the front around the sign that would be removed, and then you would come through, go around the back of the building. There would be a mortar board on the back of the building. The inside lane would be for the drive through. The outside lane would be for an escape lane. So if you were parked here and you were backing out, you were going around, or you were coming in and going around to park on the other side, you would use that escape lane and go by the people that are waiting in line for the drive through. There’s approximately four spaces, or five spaces between the menu board, the order board, and the drive through, and from the menu board back out to the entry area. There’s a space for about six other people to stack while they’re waiting, which is way more, yes, we think that’s way more than we need. The site is served by a central water and sewer. There is an existing grease trap that we would be replacing, all of our plumbing that’s on the site would be replaced. There’s a manhole that’s located at the back of our property that we would run out pipelines into. We would have a grease trap and then run into that existing manhole. The water supply comes in on the site, and comes up underneath the building. We would do the same thing. We’ve talked to the Water Department and the sewer department, and I think we have some comments from the sewer department that we would address on the next round of plans. Stormwater management on the site right now as it exists is sheet flow into either the little stream that’s in the back of our site or onto Route 9, which is similar to most of the people that have sites down in that area. When we originally met with the regional people from DOT they asked us if it was possible if we could bring that water off our site in a pipeline instead of actually sheet flowing it out onto Route 9. I guess it causes them some problems when the water comes out over across the road. We met with them last week, to 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) actually go out on the site and determine where their pipelines are. They have a 42 inch line that runs down our side of the road and the nearest catch basin is out in front of Auto Zone, and unfortunately what that means for us is we’ll have to put a catch basin in front of our site. We’re going to be submitting something to them probably within the next week on a location of that and how we would get there, but that was a recommendation to them that we do that, that we bring that water into their system underground, so that it would be better managed. In the back, or rear of the property, right now a large area in the back flows into this stream directly. We had talked with Staff about this, and we are putting a riprap wall along this, and it’s kind of not really a wall. It’s a support system for the pavement, so the pavement doesn’t break off at the edge. It would be just ripraped and then there would be grasses, whatever, that grow there, and it would kind of serve as a filter for any stormwater that runs off this way. After meeting with Staff, we did come up with a plan where we would actually put some green space at the back of our employee parking. We have three spaces in the back there, and we made it a low spot, so the water that can runoff from this area, and we will be pitching a larger amount of the area back toward this green space. Water will go in there. It’s about a 10 inch deep settling pond, so that the water would settle there before it went out to the stream. Pretty much the rest of the water is draining toward the front where it will drain toward this back. Lighting on the site, there was a question asking about the existing poles, and the existing poles are quite high. They look like they’re around 30 feet to us. We’re going to be putting in 20 foot high lights at the locations that we have shown here. They’re standard cutoff fixtures. We do have some on our plans where we show the lighting levels, the iso foot candle drawings. We did have some lighting spilling off the edge, a very low amount. I’m not sure that that’s something that would be a problem. To us it’s not. It’s a commercial area. I don’t think it’s a bad thing, but they do have cutoff attachments that go with them that can limit that light to nothing, that go off the site. So we can make that modification if we need to. We have a new dumpster area that would be fenced in in the back of the site. Originally that was located up near the building . We’re moving it back off the site, away from the building. I believe that’s, pretty much I think that’s what we wanted to show you tonight. Did you have anything else, Jon? MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male comments. MR. ROBINSON-Would you like us to go over all the comments that we had from? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I’d like you to respond to them, maybe save a few questions from Board members. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. I was going to say, we have the comments from C.T. Male and DOT, if you want to go over those. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. The first C.T. Male comment is talking about the layout plan, and it’s talking about the walkway that we have between the parking spaces. Pretty much this is the same layout that is there at the existing site, with the exception of, we have a curbed walkway that runs between the parking spaces. So somebody would get out of their car, walk up and through the front door, there’s a small vestibule here. C.T. Male’s comment is that it’s possible, even though the spaces are big enough for a car to fit from the edge of the curb to the back of the space, that perhaps somebody would drive over until their tires hit the front, and they might take up some of that parking area. I’m not sure that, in our opinion, we don’t think that that’s a problem. We don’t think that that will happen, and that that will cause, it will happen that two cars neck down that five foot space so that nobody can get through there, but the way to resolve that is to put some concrete curb stops in there, so that the cars cannot get to the curb, the actual curb, and we would be willing to do that if it’s needed. We would like not to. The second comment. MR. MAC EWAN-If you put those concrete curb stops in there, does that not make your parking space smaller, which now would not make it meet Code? 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. ROBINSON-It doesn’t make your parking space smaller, but what it does is it prevents your wheels from going past a certain point, so that the front of your vehicle won’t come to the sidewalk, but the parking space is still the same. They can use the same amount. MR. SANFORD-Wouldn’t snow removal be a problem with those? MR. ROBINSON-I mean, that’s why we’d rather not have them, because it is a snow removal issue. MR. RINGER-Have you had an opportunity to talk with Jim Houston on the snow removal? MR. ROBINSON-No, I haven’t. No, we got these Friday. I tried to call him today, and was unable to get a hold of him. MR. RINGER-You know, present it to him. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we will talk with him. MR. ROBINSON-The second comment talks about the retaining wall that we have near the stream in the back of the site. It talks about some dimensions and depths. We’ll add those to our plan. As far as the easement being needed to construct it, an easement wouldn’t be needed. What we’ve done is we’ve brought it up near the property, edge of the property line, but the machine to work on that would be back in our parking lot, reaching over, and they would do all the construction from our side of our property. So there wouldn’t be an easement that was needed for that construction. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you need a DEC permit? MR. ROBINSON-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Really? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. Yes, we’re not in the stream. There’s no disturbance. We can probably, actually, it’s a few feet away from our property line, which is farther away from the stream. The only place is comes close is in the very rear of the property. The third comment, they’re talking about possibly putting a light fixture in the back of our site near the employee parking, which is in the back here. We do have one thing that we did not show on the building, that I think is addressed somewhere else, maybe by Staff comments, is there is a wall pack on the back of the building to light up the access area to the back, where there would be any deliveries or such, taking out garbage, but I think that that’s probably a good comment, and I think we are going to look at putting a light back there. In fact, part of the light package that I submitted to you today had a light that would, is pretty much the same as the lights that we’re using on site, only it would be on a 12 foot pole, and it would be like, I don’t know, a 70 watt light instead of a, I think these ones that we have here are 250 watt. So we are going to put that light in. That was a good comment. We’re going to do that. Number Four, the dumpster enclose. The dumpster enclosure isn’t a problem for the parking space. There’s no doubt the site is tight, and it does take somebody maneuvering around the dumpster, but, physically, a car can get in there and park there. MR. LAPPER-You could also put up a sign, employee parking only. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, we could do that. Number Five is a general traffic comment. Traffic will queue around the building. What they’re talking about here is the fact that when you have a drive thru, that people are lined up to come through the drive through window. So when somebody comes in, they stop at that menu board, look at it, order and then drive around the building, and the question is if we believe that there might be a problem with stacking behind that, causing any traffic problems, and we don’t believe that there will be. Dunkin Donuts has many, many of these things, and we have like, I think I had mentioned this before. There’s like 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) five spaces between the menu board and the actual drive through window, and then there’s room for six more cars in the back. So we don’t believe that that there’s going to be any problem there whatsoever. MR. MAC EWAN-What about if you were having deliveries at the same time, or your trash service came in at the same time? MR. ROBINSON-The deliveries, the way that the deliveries would be handled would be that there would be, a truck would come around the site, be on the opposite side or the drive thru side of the window, park over here, and the deliveries would be done by hand, by hand truck, by hand cart. MR. MAC EWAN-So what’s that do for your circulation? MR. ROBINSON-As far as, it may block part of the circulation? I think, temporarily, it could block part of the escape lane. We have about 30 feet from the building to the edge. So I don’t think it’s impassible by two cars, but would it, does it block part of it? Yes, it does. Tom was saying that that there’s one, the large truck, tractor trailer that comes once a week. They have daily trucks that come in that are like panel trucks that deliver donuts and bagels and whatever, but the large trucks that bring the paper products and the supplies are once a week, and those are the tractor trailers. MR. MAC EWAN-What time do they typically come? MR. ROBINSON-I don’t think it’s something that’s predictable. I think they can come at different times of the day. They serve many stores. So they can show up at our store at any different time depending upon their schedule, and what they’re bringing where. Number Six, on the plans that we submitted, we show the drywells that are on the site, kind of in the middle of the front parking areas. We had lines going off, a line between them that carries from this side to that side, and then we had an arrow pointing out to wherever we were going to negotiate the location of a catch basin by DOT. We haven’t gotten to that point yet where we know exactly where that catch basin’s going to go. So we don’t know exactly what that information is yet, and we’ll show that on the plan for our next submission. I think that was the end of the C.T. Male comments. MR. VOLLARO-Just real quick, Garry, is that catch basin out there an existing DOT catch basin? I notice that it hasn’t been located MR. ROBINSON-No. The nearest DOT catch basin is located down in front of the entrance to Auto Zone. It’s quite a ways off our site. They have so many lines. They have two lines that run down this and one of them’s quite large. One of them’s 42 inch. I think there’s a 12 inch. We have the as built drawings. We got them last week from DOT. MR. VOLLARO-The reason I asked that question, Garry, it says, the plans say to existing New York State DOT catch basin, and it’s not shown. MR. ROBINSON-Right. When we had initially talked to them, we thought that there was a catch basin that was in front of our site, but there was no catch basin in front of our site. The nearest one upstream is a ways back also. It’s a little farther back away from that site. Unfortunately for us, because putting a catch basin in for a 42 inch pipe line is a chore. MR. LAPPER-We spoke to Mark Kennedy yesterday at DOT who actually wrote the letter for Bill Logan, and his comment on Number One was talking about the stacking for the drive thru. He wasn’t suggesting that there would be so many cars stacked that they would go out into Route 9, but he’s just talking about site congestion. So he wasn’t aware that Garry had had the discussions with the regional engineer about connecting the storm line underground, compared to what’s there now, which is a benefit that we think this project offers to both DOT and to the Town. So when we talked about the whole thing, what we suggested is, yes, we could, we 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) could get rid of the parking space that he really wants to get rid of. We can add the stormwater improvement, but without the drive thru, we don’t have a project, and so he just said that we should put that in a letter, propose that to him, which we will do in the next few days, and get that out, and hopefully have another response from him before the next meeting. MR. SANFORD-Jon, what site or what parking? MR. ROBINSON-It’s this one, right here, on the north side. It’s Number Six. MR. LAPPER-He’s concerned about cars backing out. You’d be in that entrance way. I mean, it’s worked for all these years, but because we can accommodate that, and it’s a reasonable argument, and we figured that you guys would want that anyway, we can do that. The other, in this first paragraph, the other issue about access management, this is a pretty small site, I mean, in terms of the entrance and the exit, and the way it works with a loop, we’d be concerned about blocking this off, and I think that the exit drive, and if the adjacent site agreed, obviously you’d have the right to impose a condition, but I don’t think that the Auto Zone owner is going to want to have our traffic on their site, at this point. If they came to you for a site plan that might be something else. I just don’t think that’s probably practical to expect that they would agree to that. Certainly as a condition that’s something that could be looked at in the future if they were to propose a site plan change on their site, but the way this works, with the tight site that we have, and the location of the parking, I don’t see that that’s possible, but, you know, we’re here to talk about it, and that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Okay. Tony, we’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I think this is one of those situations where it’s, certainly the area needs to be cleaned up. I mean, it’s still such a really poor location for what you’re trying to do, because it is such a small, small area. I would like nothing more than to see the Dunkin Donuts demolished and be rebuilt there. I would like to see it be rebuilt in other places, because again, the situation just isn’t ideal here, but, you know, the fact that you’re going to clean it up is a big bonus. My first question, I guess I have a question on the lighting plan. You state that there’s a wall pack on the back that’s not shown on the map? MR. ROBINSON-That is true. Yes. That’s true. We neglected to put that on the plan. I gave the lighting information to the Staff today. It’s 175 watt wall pack that’s a cut off fixture. MR. METIVIER-What will that do to the back? And I’m sorry if I missed it. MR. ROBINSON-It will light it. MR. METIVIER-It will light it, but do you know what the details would be, or is that something that you have to? MR. LAPPER-Are you asking about spillage? MR. METIVIER-Spillage over. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. We’ll make sure that there isn’t any spillage over the back line. We’re just looking for it to light up the access to the back there, there’s a little walkway that goes out, maybe about 15 feet from the building, and anybody doing deliveries would bring them out through there, to get through there. MR. METIVIER-I haven’t been by there in a while, but I assume that with the potential drive through, that’ll clean up the back area there? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. It will clean up, actually, there’s a landscaped area in the back. MR. METIVIER-I noticed that. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. ROBINSON-Yes, and it’ll look completely different than what the rear looks like now. Right now there’s some debris and it’s in sad shape and everything’s in bad shape. MR. METIVIER-It is, it truly is, and that’s why, you know, it’s still not an ideal site, but at the same time, anything could possibly, and I’ll say possibly be better than what you currently have. In some instances, people will park along the blue building, which can really obstruct parking, you know, on the diagonals when you’re trying to pull out. Have you done anything or can you do anything there to mitigate that? MR. LAPPER-We’re not going to have parking there, and if you see that we’ve added that little curbed area right when you come in, the little green space, in front of the sign for the building next door. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-So that’ll sort of discourage people from doing that. MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We could also put up a no parking sign along that building. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m just thinking, if that’s not your building there, you can’t put a parking sign on that, but can you put a sign on? MR. LAPPER-We could probably put one in the ground, you know, right in front of that building. MR. METIVIER-Okay, because that’s a concern, too, especially if you’re going to introduce a drive thru. MR. LAPPER-Yes. The intent is that nobody should be able to park there, and that’s part of why that curb is there, plus the Staff wanted it. MR. METIVIER-Have you done any kind of, I hate to use the word “study”, but the amount of people that will use the drive thru versus parking? MR. LAPPER-One easy answer is to compare this to the Main Street store, which was only renovated maybe three years or, built maybe three years ago, and, I mean, I won’t admit eating too many donuts, but I do use that drive thru, and it’s not too crowded. So you could use that as a comparison, but Tom and Jerry can talk about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Did they purchase that store as well? MR. LAPPER-Yes. In terms of the numbers at that store, but it’s just not the case like a McDonald’s where you have people long stacking. It’s just not that kind of demand. MR. METIVIER-Right. I guess my question was going to be, at certain times in the morning, I’ve heard this from rumor, of course. I don’t go there, you know, there is a problem parking. So, if you introduce the drive thru. MR. LAPPER-Well, the drive thru should help. MR. METIVIER-Will help. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because some people aren’t going to have to park and get out. It’s a lot quicker transaction. To just go in and get a donut and a cup of coffee when you’re just driving 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) around and as Garry said, you can get five people stacking from the window to the microphone, so, you know, that should MR. METIVIER-That’s five less spaces that you’d need at a time. MR. LAPPER-Exactly, and that sort of, we think that mitigates, a little bit, the fact that we’ve got this tiny site because there’s now going to be a more efficient way to just get a quick order. MR. METIVIER-Right. Do they happen to own the Dunkin Donuts in Amsterdam? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. METIVIER-That’s a nice Dunkin Donuts. I don’t know what else to add. I mean, certainly it’s a nice improvement, as far as I’m concerned, especially with, you know, a little bit of green space, certainly not a lot because you don’t have a lot to work with, but I think, overall, it could work. It’s just unfortunate that in this spot it is so small, but it’s an opportunity, again, to clean up some of the less desirable places along that road, and I will be interested to hear what the Doty’s have to say, but, you know, so far I think it may work. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Yes. Rich? MR. SANFORD-I’m at a little bit of a disadvantage in that I just received this one sheet and I see everybody else has a nice big, thick packet which showed, I think, also pictures of the exterior and everything, but that’s fine. I’m sure other members will address a lot of other issues and I can listen in. I do have one question, though. From either where you place your order or the drive-in window, whichever you think might be more appropriate, how many cars can you get in the queue line before they’re actually infringing upon parking spaces one through five? I can picture, in the morning, potentially having those cars wrap around and either blocking cars in or cars not being able to get in, because of the drive thru. So, have you done that calculation? MR. LAPPER-Garry can tell you that right now. MR. ROBINSON-It looks like about nine spaces, eight and a half, nine, somewhere in there. MR. LAPPER-That’s starting from the window. MR. ROBINSON-Starting from the window, back through, all the way around to where the parking space starts. MR. LAPPER-On the north side. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and you know your business probably a heck of a lot better than any of us, but it doesn’t seem too improbable that you could run into that situation of having. MR. LAPPER-Well, nine’s a lot of spaces. I mean, nine is even a lot of cars for McDonald’s, I mean, in terms of actually pulling up and seeing, you know, eight people in front of you, but I mean, Tom and Jerry can talk about that. TOM BURKE MR. BURKE-My name’s Tom Burke. Nine is an inordinately large number of spaces to have before you begin to interfere with patrons who come and want to park their cars. We have other restaurants with a significantly less stacking space. We’re very pleased to be able to have this amount, and particularly the fact that we are able to accommodate a five car stack between 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) the pick up window and the order board, as the optimum configuration, and with our new speed work system and technology, headsets and video display units, we expect that we’ll be able to process people very efficiently. Now if we had three cars, for instance, one at the pickup window, one in the middle, and then the order board, you don’t have enough time to assemble those orders. So what you’re doing is your, when you have those five, it’s just a few seconds, you just keep it rolling. So we have adequate space. MR. RINGER-Well, what’s the average time from the order to the pick up? MR. BURKE-That’s a trade secret. I’m not telling you. No, it’s about a minute and twenty seconds, a minute and thirty. It depends on. MR. RINGER-It’s short. That’s what I’m trying to get in my mind. MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. RINGER-It seems like it wouldn’t be a McDonald’s with a special order or something. MR. BURKE-No. It’s pretty easy for coffee. MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, but not necessarily for donuts, if they’re not yet made. MR. BURKE-Well, you haven’t seen our new express dozen. MR. SANFORD-No, I’ve been in there, obviously, times where the people who weren’t stopping for coffee and sitting down, but just were getting take out, and there’s been, at times I’ve seen 10, 12 customers waiting in line to get a box of donuts, and I can see that same thing happening for the drive-in. So that’s why I was concerned that these cars could start to snake around the building and actually cause some problems. MR. BURKE-I can only hope, but, to answer your question with regard to the existing condition at the site, you’re right. It’s a very inefficient and out dated way of doing business, and consumer behavior in the 21 Century has changed. Our business changes with it, and that st building and the way we serve people is not how we will do it going forward. That’s why we need to construct this new facility, to better serve our customers. You won’t have that situation where people are standing in line looking at the back of the head of the person in front of you while you stand there and wait and do nothing until somebody gets around to waiting on you. MR. MAC EWAN-While they get a last custard donut. MR. BURKE-That’s as frustrating to us as it is to you. That’s a thing of the past. MR. MAC EWAN-That wasn’t from experience. That was just a comment. MR. SANFORD-Anyway, that’s it. I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-The site’s very busy now, and something like this probably would be an improvement to it. It is a small site. You’ve got some issues with Male and stuff to clear up, other than, until you get all the issues cleared up and come in with a lighting plan and stuff, or that we see. I realize you’ve got a lighting plan. We haven’t seen it yet. I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s a great improvement. I can’t get too nit picky about it. I think Bob and I had a little concern about the dumpster out in the back. Just to make sure that there was enough room to have a truck come in and empty it and put the cars in, park them in there. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) I think the floor plan, like what you were saying, the floor plan looks very efficient, very efficient. I just want to make sure that you get enough landscaping in and as much green as you can grab out of that small area. That’s all. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re adding one parking space worth of green that they weren’t expecting to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So I, like I said, as long as C.T. Male, everything that, their concerns, the way, you know, they’ve got to certainly signoff on this, and you’ve got to answer, like you answered us tonight, you’ve got to get back to them and if they sign off on everything and they say it fine, I can’t get too riled up about this. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Robert. MR. VOLLARO-All right. I’m just going to go, again, down through my notes, I’ll take them one by one. I had a comment on the, I was just wondering, on the variance you got for the 75 foot setback, I was wondering if you even needed that variance. I measured 70 foot from your building to the property line, in your drawing. You’re set back 70 foot from the front of that building, including the bump out, to the property line, and I don’t know, and the way our Travel Corridor Overlay is set, it’s 75 feet from the edge of the right of way. You might have had the five feet in there and didn’t need that variance. I don’t know. It’s just a comment. I looked at it when I started looking at the drawing. I said maybe you never had to get that 75 foot setback. You might have it already. Just a comment. You’ve got the variance. It’s over. So don’t worry about it. Okay. Now, is a Pollution Control plan required for this, at this particular time? MR. LAPPER-Well, for construction there will be the typical haybale, siltation area. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but there’s new rules call for a Pollution Control plan now. MR. LAPPER-That just means you have to file the form before you start the construction. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay, and isn’t that something we’ve been looking for in our packets? I mean, at least the fact that it’s been presented as a form to be used? MR. ROBINSON-Right now I don’t think it’s required. I think March 10 it is. So we probably will end up doing it . What it does is it goes from five acre sites down to one acre sites, and March 10, if it happens March 10. I’m not sure it’s going to, but that’s what I hear. thth MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s still in legislation. I know from watching that. Okay. That’s just something I was wondering about, if we were going to do that, because you probably won’t get started until after March 10, and if it goes through by March 10, you’ll need a Pollution thth Control plan with this. Now, I have a question, and it’s, and I don’t know the answer so I’m going to ask you. How effective is that eight by thirty grass depression feeding the riprap in the filtering parking lot? How effective is it to filter off motor oil from running into the stream connecting into Halfway Brook? MR. LAPPER-What that did was allow us to direct some of the water to the back, because there wasn’t a way, what happened, in terms of the discussion, was that Garry had originally thought that everything would sheet flow into the riprap, and the riprap with the sand, and whatever plant material is in there would act as a filter, which is sort of a very passive design. So when we met with Craig Brown and George, we discussed the possibility of having an area where there could be a detention area where you could clean siltation. So it’s more active, but it’s only draining the very rear of that site by that parking area in the back. MR. VOLLARO-But that’s the area that is closest to this, to the small brook that feeds Halfway Brook, the small stream. It looks like it’s designed, basically, that grassy depression is designed as a holding filter or a holding tank, if you will, to slowly percolate out. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. ROBINSON-To a point, yes. I mean, it’s the area that we had back there, and we decided to do something with it to make it provide some treatment. MR. VOLLARO-I know there’s been some studies done, and Mr. Strough has put some stuff out on the internet that I picked up concerning phosphorus getting into Halfway Brook, which seems to be a bi-product of motor oil, and I’m just wondering how effective that’s going to be, since we’ve got a chance to look at that, and we’ve got a runoff from that parking lot. I’m just a little bit concerned as to how effective that grassy depression is as a more active filter. There are other ways of doing that. They’re a little more expensive, obviously, but there are other ways. MR. ROBINSON-Like a treatment system, is that what you’re talking about? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. There’s several, I have a book home on treatment systems that I didn’t want to bring it up tonight, but it’s something maybe we should look at. I’ll see how Mr. Strough handles that after I’m done with this, but, because I know he’s got some comments on it as well, I’m sure. On the lighting, you’ve given us some cut sheets, I just got them here. So I haven’t really looked at them to any extent. They just came in tonight, but you probably ought to look, again, at a uniformity ratio of four to one, get your average light level in there, and then determine your ratio from that. I think we do need a light back at the employee parking area. Now, I put something in here that’s not going to be too, you know, too well received I guess, but I’ll put it in because it’s in my notes and we can talk about it anyhow, but I had the consideration of eliminating the drive-thru, eliminating Parking Space Number Six, in accordance with the DOT memorandum, and adding five additional spaces at the south end of the, at the southeast elevation, for a total of 19. That seems like it wouldn’t be very well accepted, in terms of what the gentleman was talking about, high speed service of patrons and so on. Apparently, this drive-thru is a key element to the system itself. It appears that way, from the discussions that I’ve heard. So, we can talk about that. MR. LAPPER-I think you’ve answered your own question. So, that’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m trying to be very candid with you. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer, and I appreciate that. We anticipated that question, and we talked about it, and the simple answer is that they can’t justify going to the expense of renovating this whole site if they can’t get the drive-thru for the efficiency, it doesn’t make sense to do it. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s a key element to this plan? MR. LAPPER-Yes, absolutely, the most key, yes, and all the benefits of the stormwater treatment system that, you know, most of it goes to the front, that we’re talking about, just emanate from that design change, including the green space and the new architecture. MR. VOLLARO-So I’m just looking at the site circulation around that. In other words, there’s, that’s, there’s a specific drive-thru section here that’s used to drive thru, and then there’s, around the end of that is your escape area. MR. LAPPER-Well, yes, one thing that I wanted to point out there, Bob, I know that the neighbors mention in their letter, that drive-thru lane is only a stripe painted on the ground. So it’s there so that people that are queuing will know where to go, but it doesn’t preclude fire trucks or anybody else a pass through. That’s just there on the ground with paint. So there’s not a physical barrier. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Looking at your drawings, your elevation drawings, I notice that your parapet is two foot six inches. Now, where are the location of the mechanicals, the HVAC’s and so on, where do they go on this site? They’re not shown anywhere. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. BURKE-They’re on the roof. MR. VOLLARO-They’re on the roof. Now, is that two foot six inch parapet going to be enough to disguise or hide those mechanicals? Two foot six is only that high. How high are your mechanicals? MR. ROBINSON-We’ve got some pictures here of South Glens Falls renovation that was just done I can pass around to you guys. You can take a look. MR. VOLLARO-So obviously these photos won’t show that. Right? MR. ROBINSON-Well, you’re looking from the ground, the same as you would if you were looking for those things. You’re not going to be climbing up 10 feet to take a look. MR. VOLLARO-In these photos it’s not that evident. Yes. MR. ROBINSON-But you’d be looking from the same place I’m taking that picture. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. These photos are representative of what you’re going to be putting up on Glen? MR. LAPPER-Not exactly. There’s more windows on Glen than what you see there. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s representative, what I’m trying to say, the color scheme, the general layout looks about the same? MR. BURKE-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-The landscaping I looked at, what I’ve seen of the landscaping out in front, I looked at the guidelines for lower Route 9, 179 talks about standards for Route 9, and then it breaks those standards down into Upper Route 9 and Lower Route 9, and it seems like these design guidelines, the design standards shown in 179-7-050 E have been satisfied by this plan, I feel, at least, in looking at that, and then the last thing I have is I’d like to discuss an alternate building design, versus the box approach, and I don’t know if this is a corporate have to have. MR. MAC EWAN-They all are a corporate have to have. MR. VOLLARO-They’re all corporate have to haves. I understand that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve shown that corporate have to haves may not necessarily be what Queensbury has to have. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and that’s what I wanted to do is to discuss that. MR. LAPPER-You’re talking about architecture? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So I wanted to discuss the architecture on this thing. So I don’t know whether we want to discuss it now, or do we want to wait until Mr. Strough gets finished with his? MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s get through our questions then we’ll hammer on some points. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ve got Strough’s Better Design. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we know that. MR. STROUGH-And we will speak to that, Bob. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Fine, and I think that’s it. We’ll get back to the approach to the building design, but that’s about all I have. The mechanicals, it looks like they don’t show, based on the pictures that I’ve seen. Of course, that’s a very advantageous angle those pictures were taken from. So you won’t be able to see the mechanicals, and then we’ve got to get some answers to the C.T. Male questions, of course. That has to, in looking at the dumpster, where that dumpster is in back, why don’t you just decide to move that dumpster, move it over. MR. LAPPER-Over where? MR. MAC EWAN-The opposite corner. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The northwest corner. MR. LAPPER-That’s where the people in the back have their access, their easement, on the northwest corner. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you’re saying is the more you move it toward the northeast, have I got this drawing right, John? Thanks very much for that. That helps a lot. Is there any way to kind of fudge it off the northeast so that that parking lot number fifteen can get in and out of that easier, or are we now into the escape lane when we do that? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s the issue, the escape lane. There wasn’t a lot of choice, but if that’s an employee spot, the employee can just turn around it. I mean, it’s no worse than parallel parking. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would be designated as employee parking. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and we can sign that. Yes, I think that makes sense. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m going to get, I’m going to let Mr. Strough take off where I finished here. I know he’s got a ton of stuff he wants to talk about. So, Mr. Chairman, I’m about finished, and we’ll get back to the architecture later. MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater John. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s start right off with that. I’ve got some other ones, but that’s good enough. We’ll get to the architecture page. We’ve been making an attempt, whenever we can, and you know, with the Home Depot and everybody else, to upgrade and not be the typical Anywhere USA type of situation, where, you know, you drive around the country and you see the same building, the same McDonald’s, the same Burger Kings, the same Dunkin Donuts. You don’t even know what town you’re in. I mean, they all start looking the same, and we’re not the only community who have a serious interest in this and want to all look unique. So, you know, I’ve been collecting various designs of buildings, let’s go to Dunkin Donuts. Okay, here we have, and I’ll pass this down for my other Planning Board members to see, but we have Saratoga Dunkin Donuts, which, I don’t know if the Burkes own that? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And that’s a nice looking building, and then, I’m not sure where this Dunkin Donuts is. MR. BURKE-That’s Malta. MR. STROUGH-That’s Malta. MR. LAPPER-That’s theirs also. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. STROUGH-And then we have Hyde Park. And then we have, well, I didn’t get a picture of it, the new one on Wolfe Rd., but I got the Business Review, and it says, Colonial style with white siding, peaked roof, neo-Greek design columns out in front. Okay, and then we have, I’ve got one, this is Falma, Maine, and it’s just an artist’s rendering, but, you know, I’m going to leave the architectural thing aside for right now and pass this down so my fellow Planning Board members can get a look see, and the building you propose, I think, is an upgrade from what’s there. I will go along with that, and that may be the consensus of the Planning Board, but I understand that you may want to put another one up on Quaker Road, and I may ask for a little bit more there, but I’m not sure. Let’s see how the Planning Board feels. Like you said, I’ll open it up, I’ll pass this down. So with that said, let me go on to some little odds and ends before we get, what’s interesting is, in the northern, northeast corner, there’s a sign there for U- Rental and the computer place. MR. LAPPER-That’s there by easement. That is owned by the neighbors. MR. STROUGH-That was my question. So, that’s on your property. MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that’s something that they have a deeded easement for that sign. So we don’t have any control over that. It was there previously, and that’s the neighbors who are in the back. They also own that building on the north. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Fine. Thanks. Okay. Now moving along, I see on the plans, I didn’t quite understand, Garry, that exit. What’s that? MR. ROBINSON-It’s the light. You’re circling the light right there. MR. LAPPER-That’s the light pole. MR. STROUGH-That’s a light. That has nothing to do with the exit? The exit just happened to be? MR. LAPPER-That’s the cutoff light. MR. STROUGH-That’s showing that people can access the back property actually. It’s not an exit. MR. ROBINSON-Well, it’s the escape lane. So, it is an exit. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-It’s differentiating between the drive-thru lane and the exit lane, the escape lane. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Escape sounds too drastic. MR. STROUGH-Now that you mention lighting, let’s talk about that. Now, there’s really two light poles servicing the lot right now. There’s one in front by the sign, and there’s one in the rear by where you’re proposing the employee parking. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So there’s two fixtures kind of servicing the whole area. Versus four that you’re proposing. I’m just wondering if the four that you’re proposing, because I did notice the overspill, if that’s excessive for this light. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. BURKE-I believe that those are double-headed fixtures. So you effectively have four different lights. You also have 30 foot poles, which creates greater dispersion. So what we would be doing is confining the light more on the site, with a lower pole, and getting better, more even lighting throughout the site. That plan was designed by a lighting consultant. I didn’t do it. He didn’t do it. MR. MAC EWAN-This lighting plan that’s in your packet? MR. BURKE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that based on the existing site conditions, or your proposed renovations? MR. BURKE-Proposed renovations. MR. MAC EWAN-Because there’s a lot of spillage off the site. MR. BURKE-There’s a lot of spillage off it now. MR. MAC EWAN-I know. MR. BURKE-At this point. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not worried about now. I’m worried about, like everyone else, what we’re going to arrive at as the end result here. Did you go, did this consultant, I don’t mean to cut in here, John, but did this consultant go by our new Town standards for lighting when he put this plan together? MR. BURKE-Yes. I’m going to let Garry, this is a professional who does this for a living. I mean, this guy, that’s all he does is lighting. So, I’ll let Garry address it further. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. We did. We had a professional do it. He did come up with it, the ISO foot candle plan. We did give him Queensbury’s Code, and I believe that the spillage that you’re talking about, I think it’s like .2 foot candles or something, where we’re trying to light this site to like two and a half. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m seeing .6 in some spots, .5, .7. MR. ROBINSON-I did talk to him about that, and that fixture comes with a cutoff plate that you can put on there that prevents light from going behind. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s just not one light. I’m looking at several lights that are spilling over off the property on this. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. The spillage is rather small. It’s in a commercial area. Pretty much there’s a lot of light there as it is, but, I mean, I think we can do something. We will address that, by the next time we come in. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to sound blunt about this, but it’s not a matter of, it’s in a commercial area. It’s a matter of what the new Zoning Ordinance says we need to do. We need to keep light spillage on the property, not off the property. That was the whole idea behind the concept of adopting a lighting ordinance for the Town. Just one more question, and I’ll throw it back to John. The illuminated sign you have on the front of the building, only puts out .8 foot candles? MR. ROBINSON-I don’t know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is your proposed lighting that you have for this store the same kind of lighting that you have for the South Glens Falls store? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. ROBINSON-I don’t know what they have at South Glens Falls. MR. MAC EWAN-Let me tell you, way too bright. It will be less intense than the South Glens Falls facility? MR. BURKE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’ll also add the change to the cutoff lights. MR. ROBINSON-Right. MR. LAPPER-So the next time we come in the spillage will be less on all four of those. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I would expect when this plan comes back in that you’re not going to have any spillage or .1 or .2 at the most off the property. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. I did talk to him. Once we got the comments from Staff, I did talk to him, and he is going to revise that. So we will be putting that on the next plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, thank you, then. On the lighting, now, what’s going to light up the rear, from what I understand from Tony’s discussion and Bob’s discussion, is a light pack on the building. Doesn’t Code say that they have to be shielded, any light packs that are building mounted have to be shielded? MR. LAPPER-Garry also agreed to put in another pole by the employee area, because that’s what Staff had asked for. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, no, Jon’s getting at what I’m eventually going at. I think he kind of knows me. That answers that. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, we’ll shield the one on the building. MR. STROUGH-My concern was with the ability to light up the employee parking area, and Jon said you’re going to add that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, the traffic flow, I’m sure ITE has numbers for the peak hour. Do you know, off hand, what those peaks hour numbers for a typical Dunkin Donuts of this square footage are? MR. ROBINSON-I don’t. I don’t. MR. STROUGH-Because if we could do an empirical analysis of making sure that the queuing line does not impede the parking area, I would feel more at ease, and I think that was the general concern. MR. LAPPER-We’ll get you something. It may be from actual operation of their other stores that we can say are analogous to this, in terms of. MR. STROUGH-I understand that every once in a while you might have a problem, like on Route 4 going between Concord, New Hampshire and Portsmouth, there’s two Dunkin Donuts. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. BURKE-We don’t own them. MR. STROUGH-Not yet, and once in awhile, early in the morning, around the seven, seven thirty area, if I’m going through there, there will be some queuing out to the road in one of the McDonald’s, and I’m not sure if you’re familiar with that Route 4, but it’s a fairly busy street. It might be busier than this would ever get, but if we could have some empirical analysis, now, and I gave myself, and I’m not an engineer and I don’t know if this is accurate, but I gave myself 25 feet for car queuing. Now I don’t know if that’s excessive. MR. LAPPER-Twenty is usually what. MR. STROUGH-Is twenty the usual? So with twenty, I guess, I got six, so you might get seven or eight then, wrapped around, in queue, waiting for a product, well, and I know the Burkes want to increase and boost business, and I don’t blame them for that. It may be putting up another Dunkin Donuts on Quaker would take some of the burden off this Dunkin Donuts. I’m just trying to balance everything out to see if it would be a problem. It hasn’t been a problem to date, I mean, except for, as Mr. Sanford pointed out, sometimes early on on a Saturday morning it gets backed up there as far as people waiting for their donuts. MR. BURKE-And that’s without a drive-thru. MR. STROUGH-And that’s without a drive-thru. The drive-thru should help that problem. MR. BURKE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-I agree. MR. LAPPER-We’ll get you some data, some numbers on that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, we’re trying to fit a lot into a small area. I mean, we’ve got less than a half an acre. We’ve got .44 acres. MR. LAPPER-Admittedly. MR. STROUGH-And we’ve increased the size of the building 52% over what’s there, and I understand that the donuts are going to be delivered, and the bagels, the muffins, the croissants, the scones, are going to be all baked on site, and, well, I’m just wondering if all said and done, what I’m going to try and get down to here is, do we need a building this size? I mean, if we could make it smaller, it would take care of some of the congestion problems that we’re noticing here. If we could. MR. BURKE-I can answer your, the answer is, no. The building can’t be smaller. I think as part of the submittal we included a floor plan and our business today is different than it was when that building was constructed in, I think, the 70’s. Product lines are different, everything from Coolata to iced coffee. It’s a different business. Consumer behavior is different, and there is, that building is actually 50% smaller than many of the other typical Dunkin shops that we’ve constructed in the last couple of years that also get their product from outside. So, the answer is, that’s as small as we can make it. If we could do something different, we would have already done that, recognizing the limitations of the site. MR. STROUGH-Well, my question, while you’re right here, Mr. Burke, is, I know that you’re delivering the donuts and you’re making the donuts out of Malta. If you considered doing the same things with the bagels, the muffins, the croissants and the scones, you wouldn’t need the back end, which is basically. MR. BURKE-That’s not an option. I’m a licensee of a system, and I have to adhere to the processes and formulas. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. STROUGH-So you can’t do that? MR. BURKE-Absolutely not. Those are made on-site in very small batches throughout the day, and the night, and it would be, it’s inconceivable that we would even attempt to try to rewrite the franchise agreement. They wouldn’t do it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I wouldn’t know that until I asked you. MR. BURKE-No. I appreciate the question, but it’s not an option for us. MR. STROUGH-I appreciate your answer. MR. BURKE-Thank you, sir. MR. STROUGH-Because I’m just trying to think out loud, because if we could have reduced it, there could have been more green space and more permeable area, but, okay, let’s move on. In our landscaping, you know, Bob mentioned the Route 9 corridor, and it does say in our Town Code, 179-7-050, Paragraph B, currently the Lower Route 9 corridor is characterized by an overabundance of asphalt, smaller shopping plaza, one row of front parking, large store with poorly landscaped parking lots, variable set backs, limited plantings, no continuity. Your landscaping is an improvement. Why not at least one tree in that increased landscaped area that we increased because you gave up parking lot number six, at least one little sugar maple or something out there. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know if sugar maple’s the right tree. MR. STROUGH-I think you might be the only people on that Lower Route 9 to have a tree. MR. MAC EWAN-There is a listing, actually the Town has a listing of trees that are hearty in high salt content areas along major highways. We have an actual listing. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, consider that. MR. LAPPER-We can put a tree in. We just might not propose sugar maple. MR. STROUGH-A little bit goes a long way here in that landscaping, that tree, and the landscaping, you did a nice job with it. I’ve got to compliment that. It’s going to look nice. With the tree out in front, you know. Okay. So we’re moving along pretty good here. Now, talking about stormwater drainage, I didn’t get a stormwater report, I mean, with an empirical analysis, with coefficients, with the rational method, and only Bob and I are the only two Planning Board members that I’m aware of that go through that. MR. MAC EWAN-Stop right there. We all go through it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. We all go through it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I don’t. MR. STROUGH-But, you know, I didn’t see that and I was looking for it. MR. LAPPER-They’re the only two that wake up during the middle of the night thinking about it. MR. STROUGH-Well, here’s some questions I have, and I think some of them got answered. Now, the catch basin that you’re going to have to install, I guess, on Route 9, and I guess you’re going to have to get New York State DOT approvals for that, etc., etc., etc. MR. LAPPER-Yes. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. STROUGH-Now, I thought that might be an infiltration type, but listening to your discussion, I guess it’s not. It’s tied into another 40 inch drain that goes, proceeds south from there? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-And where does that eventually flow into, do you know? MR. LAPPER-I don’t want to answer the question. MR. STROUGH-Well, you could say he had, or got recently, the New York State DOT as built? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. I went up to Warrensburg and talked to the Regional Engineer and we were down on site. MR. STROUGH-Dave Wick. MR. ROBINSON-Looked at this. MR. STROUGH-With Dave Wick? MR. ROBINSON-No, it’s Dick. MR. STROUGH-DOT. I’m sorry. MR. LAPPER-The County. MR. ROBINSON-Frank C. something. I can’t remember his last name, but we went through some of the old plans that they had, which are very old for the work that’s been done on that road, and what happens is the line comes down, it goes past us, and just past us it goes to the other side of the road. There still is a line that goes down the same side. It’s very complex, and they end up down by Price Chopper, down in the stream that runs through there. MR. STROUGH-That’s where it ends up? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-That was my suspicion. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, and the lines get bigger. I mean, a 48 inch line down lower. MR. STROUGH-I’m not happy with it. It’s not your fault, and we’re going to work on that, George, but it’s not your fault. MR. LAPPER-Even if we had the ability to treat it, it would be going into a 42 inch line where it’s just taking everything off the road, untreated. MR. STROUGH-I know. It’s not a good situation, but it’s not your fault. Now, that 30 inch drain, I don’t know if the Burkes have been here long enough to be familiar with that, but the 30 inch drain that the stream runs into, Number One, has there been any problems with siltation blocking that 30 inch drain? Does that area have a history of that? MR. LAPPER-The answer is they haven’t owned it long enough to know. MR. STROUGH-That’s what I suspected, and my other one I suspect, where does that 30 inch drain end up? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. ROBINSON-Again, when I talked with the guy from DOT, we’re presuming that it goes into that 42 inch line that runs in front of our site. However, there is not a plan, he did not have a plan that showed that. MR. STROUGH-All right. I thought I’d ask. I didn’t think you would know the answer. I didn’t expect you to know the answer, but if you did know the answer, because we’re working on that. All right. So that, again, is not your problem, but I thought I’d ask. Yes, in your stormwater plan, I looked for spot elevations, and there was a lack of those to assure that the water was flowing in the direction that it’s supposed to flow in when all is repaved and said and done. I was looking for that. I didn’t see it, and when you come back, it would be nice. Okay. Lighting we talked about. Utilities locations, on the future site plan, do you plan on putting that, the water supply, the gas and electric and, because I know you’re going to bury the electric, and I just didn’t know where they were going and sometimes we get to see that and sometimes we see a problem, and the applicant’s glad that we see the problem, because we can fix it before we start construction. So it’s nice to see them on the site plans. MR. ROBINSON-One of the things that you were saying there was that we would bury the electric. I don’t think that’s going to happen. MR. STROUGH-Didn’t I read that in the text? There’s going to be poles, but I think I read, and I’ll find it later when things get to public discussion, we’ll be bringing things up later. We’ll drop it for now. I’ll get back to the narrative. Somewhere in the narrative I think I read that, but I deal with so many applications. MR. ROBINSON-I think what happens is the MR. VOLLARO-He says the electric to the building and comes from the pole to the rear of the parcel located beyond the property line. So it’s overhead. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Really, he doesn’t mention buried anywhere. MR. STROUGH-That’s existing utilities. Now, read on. Right there. MR. VOLLARO-Overhead poles, underground, to the terminal pole just to the rear. MR. STROUGH-It does say that. MR. ROBINSON-What happens is the way that the power comes onto the site, there are some poles there that would be left on the site. So, not to say that it would come on site all underground. What would happen, at the terminal pole right now, that we have, it would run under there. MR. STROUGH-All right. That’s fine. Just show me on the plans, when you come back. MR. ROBINSON-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s fine. The building design was mentioned. We’ll see how that goes. Okay. I parked over there today, and my vehicle did block the parking of the sidewalk. My vehicle alone blocked it, but what you’re proposing is going to be five foot of sidewalk with curbing that’s going to be six foot. MR. MAC EWAN-A Bradley Fighting vehicle would block the parking area, too. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s what I’ve got. So I can’t use what I drive as a judge, but. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. LAPPER-But there will be curbs. That’s your point, and that’s true. Okay, and we’re going to get some ITE traffic generation numbers, because, as I’ve made a note over here, what I’m looking for is peak hour vehicle generation, and then I want to, a mathematical formula, he says he can service one vehicle for every minute and a half. That will give me an ability to see how many, if we can service and keep the stacking limited to six or seven, in the worst case scenarios, I’ll feel better about that. MR. BURKE-I didn’t say it takes a minute and a half to serve each customer. The first customer is a minute and a half. At the next meeting we can flesh it out for you, yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. Okay. All right. So, those are the issues that I see, and we’ll just go from there, and thank you, applicant, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN DOTY MR. DOTY-I’m John Doty, Mr. MacEwan. My wife and I own the properties that have the hair salon, U-Rental and various other. I have written a letter to the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have that read in to the record. MR. DOTY-Okay. A few comments for Mr. Strough. The drain has blocked, the 30 inch drain there has blocked many times over the years. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. DOTY-Having been there 27 years, I can speak to that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. DOTY-A Dunkin Donuts semi-trailer comes every Wednesday usually about noon. It varies a little bit, but pretty regularly on Wednesdays, and has normally blocked the traffic pattern behind the building. I would like to address that semi-trailer question. I see a great deal of difficulty on a semi-trailer coming around the corner there and then turning down by U- Rental, and we have many semi-trailer deliveries over the years. I would say for U-Rental once every two weeks. So I see problems with the plan, and with people stopped in that lane waiting for service, from previous experience trying to get through there in a large truck, might as well be concrete blocks sitting there. They won’t move out of the way. I believe any of you folks that have been involved with the emergency services have also seen that. People won’t move out of the way. So I’ve got some concerns in that area. If he’s going to park on the south line there, and I have seen them recently either back in or back out onto Glen Street, that semi for Dunkin Donuts, I think that’s quite hazardous. There’s no procedures for that. When he was going regularly, and when I was there, he would go back, and you can see the loop in the picture behind the Dunkin Donuts building, he would turn around there and drive out, but he had to drive out the in lane, because the way things are configured, he can’t make it out the right, the south side of the building. Moving the building may be helpful, but both the buildings there, my building and the Dunkin Donuts building have been hit many times by semi-trailers, just because they can’t make the swing there. Truck deliveries, many of the trucks in and out of there are not pickup trucks. A garbage truck is 45 feet long. He’s going to have a tough time in there getting to that dumpster, and he will definitely block both traffic lanes 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) picking it up. We’ve got a great, a considerable traffic flow problem in there. In my letter I’ve addressed parking. We have insufficient parking there now. I understand, and we really welcome the fact that Dunkin Donuts is going to be rebuilt. That place had gone downhill very badly for a number of years, but we’re concerned about the parking. In my letter I noted other spaces that aren’t delineated on their plan that are actual use by customers there. Any of you people that have been in there see the cars parked in those spots alongside the computer building, in front of my building, alongside the Dunkin Donuts building. So, I understand the planning requirements are four seats to a car, but really that place has one or two people in a car when they come in there to stop there. So, instead of putting less seats in, parking in there, they need more parking in there. I’m very concerned about the spill over onto my property, especially where the hair salon is, because that place is tight already, and Dunkin Donuts customers park there and my customers park on their property, and I haven’t had a problem with that. I want to get back to the parking of the semi on the south side of the building to unload. Where are they going to put the snow, for snow removal? It’s all piled up there. They’ll have that lane full, and then how are people going to escape? There’s no place for snow on this plan. In a winter like this, it’s a big problem. I guess other than what I have in my letter, I really don’t have much else to say. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have your letter read in. MR. DOTY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Sir? MARK DICKINSON MR. DICKINSON-My name is Mark Dickinson. I also have a letter here, too. I’m the new owner of U-Rental, right behind the Dunkin Donuts. I just want to touch on a couple of things. Last Friday I was at the Broad Street Dunkin Donuts. There was 10 cars waiting in line at the drive-thru, which would put it past the parking spots. Today there was 35 cars between eight and eight fifteen at this Dunkin Donuts. MR. MAC EWAN-Which one, the one on Glen Street? MR. DICKINSON-Yes, the one on Glen Street, there was 35 cars there. They park in front of my building, they park on the side. They’re always full. The other thing, with the delivery truck, I’ve been taking about an average, they’ve been averaging about 25 to 35 minutes for them to load and unload that truck. So that’s 35 minutes of blocking the escape lane. Also in the easement, if that’s backed up, I can’t get customers in and out, with trailers, Bobcats that we’re towing in and out of there all the time, and as of the backing up, he says there won’t be too much of a back up, but you’ve been by Wendy’s at noon, and they’re backed up onto Glen Street all the time. He also said he can’t build a smaller building, but South Glens Falls is smaller, Broad Street’s smaller, Fort Edward’s smaller. Why can’t this one be smaller, especially if he’s going to build another one on Quaker Road. The other thing is, Dunkin Donuts, there’s a lot of contractors that come in. They’re towing trailers. Do they have room for them to park their vehicles in their plan for the parking? Other than that, the rest I have in the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Do you want to read those letters in? MR. HILTON-The first letter I have reads, “To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter to show our concern for the proposed Dunkin Donuts on Glen St. We feel that the larger building and proposed drive-thru will eliminate parking spaces for our customers and also cause a lot of congestion on Glen St. We understand that the building needs to be replaced but we do not feel that a larger building with drive-thru is needed. We look at the building in South Glens Falls and it is a much smaller building with drive-thru and they do not share a drive with other commercial properties. We feel that the town should take other surrounding commercial properties into consideration when making their decision. We see the new building affecting several businesses such as Northeast Technology Associates, U Rent All, Finkelstein & 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) Partners Law firm, Advanced Auto and New Wave Hair Salon. As it is now Dunkin customers use other commercial properties for parking and deliveries as well as backing their delivery truck on Glen St. We feel that a smaller building and more parking will be needed for not only employee parking but for customers as well. As it is now, we see at least five or six Dunkin employees that use up many of the parking spaces they have available. We know that Dunkin shares a right of way with business behind the building and a drive-thru would make it so cars will be standing in the right of way. Please take all these considerations to heart because we feel it not only affects us but also many of the surrounding businesses. Thank you. New Wave Hair Salon” The second letter I have is from John and Marianne Doty, and it reads, “To The Planning Board: We are the owners of the properties to the north and to the west of the Dunkin Donuts site. Our tenants are U-Rent All, New Wave Hair Salon, North East Technical Group, and the Finkelstein Partners law firm. For the past 27 years we have enjoyed a cordial and cooperative relationship with the owners of Dunkin Donuts on Upper Glen Street. We look forward to continuing the same association with the new owners. In that light, it is difficult for us to voice our objections to the proposed renovation of their property on Upper Glen Street. Although the drawings do not adequately illustrate it, there will be a substantial reduction in the number of parking spaces at their site. The spaces we refer to are two alongside Dunkin Donut’s present building, two at the head of the driveway in front of the U-Rent-All building and three alongside the building housing Northeast Technology Associates, formerly Gordon’s Paint Store. (Please see enclosed sketch.) None of these spaces, which are in constant use by Dunkin Donuts customers, are shown on the plans that show the current configuration of Dunkin Donuts parking and are eliminated with the new proposal. The proposed curbing in the vicinity of U-Rent-All sign on Upper Glen Street will also effectively eliminate two spaces in front of the Northeast Tech. Store, and cause customers, when leaving, to have to back out onto Upper Glen Street from the remaining two spaces. There is no provision in the plan on file for parking for cars and pickup trucks towing trailers. We have observed many such vehicles stopping at Dunkin Donuts on a daily basis over the years. The requirement of having only one parking space for every four restaurant seats may be a good planning tool, however, with Dunkin Donuts we are dealing with an existing business and it is obvious to even casual observation, that the average car stopping at the Upper Glen Street Dunkin Donuts has considerably less than two occupants. As a result the expanded seating proposed for the building should require more parking spaces rather than less. We realize that the proposed drive thru lane might eliminate some of the requirement for parking spaces, however, if the number of cars that line up for the drive thru approaches the number of people that we have seen many times lined up for service inside the store the line will extend on to Upper Glen Street and with out a doubt block all the parking spaces on the side of the building where they are waiting. Two spaces for Dunkin Donuts employee parking are insufficient. I have observed some morning shifts on busy days having as many as seven employees waiting on customers. Several times over the years, Dunkin Donuts and we have tried to institute a one-way entrance and exit traffic pattern. Each time it has failed. It proved to be unenforceable. We have concerns about semi tractor-trailer access for both Dunkin Donuts and U-Rent-All product delivery. Traditionally, the Dunkin Donut wholesale delivery truck comes once a week and requires all of the available property, blocking present traffic lanes, to maneuver for delivery, unloading and departure. This has caused the drivers exiting the property to have to turn around and exit through the entrance lane resulting in additional traffic confusion. The daily delivery trucks, milk truck, Dunkin Donut’s delivery truck (3 or 4 times a day), garbage pick up truck, etc. all block present traffic lanes when servicing Dunkin Donuts. The decrease in number of parking spaces at Dunkin Donuts will increase the spillover of their customers’ parking into the spaces allocated for customers of our tenants as well as the customers of neighboring businesses. In addition to creating a parking nightmare, it may also create dangerous traffic problems on Upper Glen Street as cars line up for the drive thru, line up for parking spaces, or back out onto Upper Glen Street to get out of the congestion. Even with the current amount of parking there have been many times that traffic has been stopped on Upper Glen Street while cars are maneuvering for parking spaces in the Dunkin Donuts lot. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns about this proposed project. Cordially, John R. Doty, Jr. President Mary Anne C. Doty Secretary/Treasurer” MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have more letters? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. HILTON-Yes, yes, I do. This one has pictures attached. I will send this one around as well. It’s from Mark Dickinson. It says, “To Whom It May Concern: My name is Mark Dickinson and I am the new owner of U Rent All on Upper Glen St. in Queensbury (Behind Dunkin Donuts). I am very concerned about the new construction of the Dunkin Donuts at 713 Upper Glen St. I truly believe that if the building is constructed as shown in the plans that it will indeed hinder my business dramatically. Below I will list several problems that I have with the new plans. Hopefully the Town will look over the plans and come down to our location to see how much it will effect my business. 1. I am afraid that if I had a fire on my back property and people are waiting for the drive-thru that fire trucks would not have enough room to get to my property. 2. As far as I understand people waiting in line for the drive-thru cannot block or stay in the Right of Way because then there would be no way for my customers to get onto my property. If there were enough people waiting with how much traffic comes and goes through this Dunkin Donuts, the line could reach out to Glen St. 3. I also do not believe they are leaving enough room for the delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and normal traffic that use the Right of Way. As it is now the Dunkin Donut truck (which is a tractor trailer truck) blocks all traffic around the building and that even when he is using my property to park his truck on. The same goes for the garbage truck he also parks on my property to empty Dunkin’s garbage. This doesn’t include normal cars and trucks towing trailers or commercial vehicles that either go to Dunkin or are customers of mine. 70% of my business depends on trailers and larger vehicles to travel in and out freely. Contractors and even homeowners do not want to wait behind people in line at a drive-thru to be able to get to my store. I have trailers with equipment in and out all times of the day and I do not believe there would be enough room. 4. As far as parking goes, I feel there would not be adequate parking for any of the surrounding business’s if the building was built as planned. I can see where at least 7 parking spots would be lost. As for Dunkin’s Employee parking, 2 would not be sufficient considering that at least 5 or 6 are working at a particular time. As it is now the employee’s have to cross my property to access their parking spaces. These are just a few of the complaints I have about the new plans for the building. In my opinion I feel that if he really needs a drive-thru he should plan on a much smaller building. As it is now Dunkin Donuts parking overflows onto other commercial properties. I believe with a drive-thru there would be way too much congestion for such a small area. In closing, I hope the Town of Queensbury will not allow the building to be built as planned. It needs to be much smaller and more parking for that type of business. Even now in the mornings it gets very congested and there is not a drive-thru at this point. U-Rent All has been at this location for over 30 years and hopefully we can be here for many, many more but if my customers cannot get to me I cannot stay in business. Enclosed are some pictures showing how little space there is now and I feel with a larger building, less parking and a drive-thru things will be much worse. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mark Dickinson” A note at the bottom says, “Enclosed you will see photos of Dunkin Donuts Deliveries and how it affects my business as well as the businesses around me. Dunkin Donuts is also blocking Glen Street when delivering on Thursday afternoons. I think someone from the Board should watch how they do their deliveries and how it blocks not only my drive but also their own soon to be drive-thru.” Finally, I have a letter from Mrs. Ethel Wynn. It says, “Dear Board Members: Regarding the Dunkin Donuts proposal for 713 Glen St., site plan #10-2003: We own the adjoining property at 721 Glen, and our concern is never with business expansion or progress, but it is always concerned with what happens to water, especially in an area of high water table. Unless all surface/run-off water can be channeled and completely contained in pipes that are then connected to other pipes (such as the D.O.T. line running along Route 9), to be safely taken from the area, then no further open ground area should be covered with anything that would divert such water. I don’t believe that dry wells fit the description of completely contained piping. I also wonder at such a shallow depth of 3 feet. I know the water table is high, but am now more concerned than ever. We are interested in feedback from all concerned. Thank you. Sincerely, Ethel Wynn (Mrs.)” And that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you guys want to come back up. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. LAPPER-I guess just in general, I only have one comment. The Burkes are young guys who are trying hard to build a business, and they’re trying hard to improve this site. We all know the constraints of having a business in the back that you have to get through the site in front, which, you know, presumably the new owner of U-Rent All was aware of that when he bought his business, that there are certain existing constraints, but I think that the letters from the owner and the tenant in that building show that the existing situation is not good right now, and the applicants believe that with the drive through they’re going to alleviate this because the people that are there to pick up a box of munchkins or a cup of coffee are going to be able to get through the site quicker without having to stop, get out of their car and take up parking spaces. So, I mean, we’re going to all this trouble and considerable expense on their part to make the site function better for all concerned, and to show that, just one example. Right now, it may be true that the dumpster is serviced by the garbage truck that goes on the property in the back, but by moving it to where it is now, I mean, it’s the purple building which doesn’t show behind there. There’s the dumpster behind the purple building on Garry’s map of before and after. By moving that away, it would be serviced solely on this property, and in terms of the, one of the speakers mentioned the delivery, the one delivery truck a week at around noon on Wednesday, that’s a time of low use for this because Dunkin Donuts business is obviously primarily in the morning. So they do have the ability to schedule that one tractor trailer at a low peak hour time, and that’s what they’ve done, in terms of their site. So, you know, as I think you can see in our responses, we’re here to work with the Board on all the issues that you’ve raised. We’ll certainly listen to your list and anything else that you want to add at this point, and we’ll come back with answers to the questions that you’ve asked, and try and make it a better site and a better site plan. So that we can get going and improve the site. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got a couple of questions, just to kind of refresh things we’ve talked about here. This lighting plan, are you going to totally redo it in accordance with Town standards? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The site now has 30 foot high poles? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And you’re going to 20 foot high? MR. LAPPER-Twenty. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The parking, you need six for employees. MR. LAPPER-Three for employees. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought you had, at any time you had six maximum on site? MR. LAPPER-One per two employees is what the Code says. They hire high school kids that get dropped off. So they’re okay with that, but that’s what the Code says, one per two employees. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. As far as the deliveries, set up now, by the photographs I’m looking at obviously that truck is blocking the entrance to U-Rent All. That’s a problem. Now you’re suggesting that, with deliveries, that the truck would not park in either the drive thru aisle or the other aisle which would be your drive-thru aisle. MR. LAPPER-They park in the front. MR. MAC EWAN-What do you mean by the front? Where is the front? MR. LAPPER-Next to Auto Zone, that part of the. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-If they park there, I’ve got two questions for you. Wouldn’t they, one, block the drive aisle from people being able to get through? MR. LAPPER-There’s 30 feet between the edge of the parking space and the property line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So that’s 15 feet. That’s two car lengths, two car widths. MR. LAPPER-Right. So the truck is taking up one car, and there’s still room for one car to get by. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So if someone’s in the drive-thru lane, that’s blocked. They’re at the window and there’s another two cars. MR. LAPPER-No, they’re past the drive-thru. They’re past the drive-thru window. They’re towards the front, towards Glen Street. MR. STROUGH-But going along with your thinking, Mr. Chairman, right now, and I just did a site visit again this afternoon, there’s a huge mound of snow between Auto Zone and Dunkin Donuts, which I kind of ignored, but if that’s where the truck’s going to be, then that snow mounding on a year like this might present a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-And you take it even one step farther, even in a basking July day, a truck’s not going to be able to park there because you’ve got 20 foot light poles here he’s going to knock down. He’s going to want to park far enough off those light poles not to hit them. So now he’s taking up more than half the drive aisle, which now you’ve got a log jam there. MR. LAPPER-Is the light pole an issue? Let me respond to snow. They recognize, on this site, that except for a minor snow storm that could be pushed in the back, they’ve got to move the snow off site. I mean, there’s no place to store snow. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that a guarantee it’s going to be done? MR. LAPPER-We’ll do that as a condition of the site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-So that means we’d have to send Code Enforcement up there every time there’s a snowstorm to make sure snow’s taken off the site to keep good traffic flow through there. MR. LAPPER-They can eat donuts while they’re watching, but, yes, we’ll have to do a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it doesn’t, to me, sound like good planning, Jon. I mean, it’s not for the Town to go around and check and make sure everybody’s taking snow off the property so that you’ve got a drive aisle. MR. LAPPER-They need to do that because the site doesn’t have room for stacking. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m asking you to do is do your homework a little bit more and make sure that it’s going to work. I have concerns that a tractor trailer making deliveries and parking along that south property line is not going to park in the way you’re suggesting it because he’s going to want to stay off those light poles, which means he’s going to move over at least half a lane to avoid them. If you’ve got 20 foot high light poles, measure to the top of a tractor trailer. That 60 footer that was shown there, you’re talking at least 12 to 14 feet to the height of that tractor trailer. Are you with me on that, or am I losing you? MR. ROBINSON-You’re thinking that we have like a street light that comes out 10 feet or something. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-No. I’m looking at your two 20 foot high shoebox lights that are on that property line. MR. ROBINSON-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon said that the trucker would pull up right next to the property line. He’s not going to do that because you’ve got two light poles that are going to interfere with him being able to do that. MR. ROBINSON-Because the light poles are right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Which means now he’s not going to park right on the property line. He’s going to park over far enough so that the side of his truck is not going to hit those light poles. MR. ROBINSON-Right. That’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Which now means he’s taking up another half of a drive lane. You said you had two drive lanes. I’m trying to drive home a point here, it’s not going to work. That’s the point I’m driving home. MR. ROBINSON-It’s going to be tight. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a difference between tight and not working. MR. ROBINSON-Yes, I think it’ll work. MR. MAC EWAN-You demonstrate to us that it’ll work. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. We’ll put together some plans with the truck. There’s 30 feet there. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s all I’m asking is to demonstrate to us that you can show that it’ll work. That’s a concern. So what we’ve seen other developers do in the past, they’ve shown the turning radius. They’ve even shown a truck on a plan to demonstrate that it can work. MR. ROBINSON-Yes. We’ll do that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. While we had discussions going on back and forth, I took an informal pole, and we have a five to two edge, we’d like to have an alternative architectural design. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Something other than your standard, out of the box, number one prototype off the drawing board. Okay, MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, going back to your prior point, what I’d like to see here, and I don’t know how it’s best accomplished, but I’m hearing from the applicant that traffic flow is manageable. I’m hearing concerns from this Board that it may not be as manageable as the applicant’s saying, and we’re hearing from the public that it’s not manageable, and what I would like to see is some kind of an independent analysis, which basically digests all of what has been discussed here, to come in with, hopefully, an objective statement as to whether or not what the applicant is trying to do may be too much for this site, one way or the other, and one of the problems I’ve always wrestled with is when we’ve had situations like this, whether it might be traffic studies on whether a light is needed on Bay Road or whatever it might be, I’m not pointing fingers here, but we go to the applicant and the applicant hires somebody to do a study and they come back a month later and they say, you know, yes, we’ve done a study and it looks okay. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. LAPPER-The answer is C.T. Male. You have an engineering firm with a traffic department. We’ll make the submission and they’ll review it and tell you what they think. MR. RINGER-They do that on all the. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a curious question, it was kind of touched on, but I don’t know if I really got an answer out of you. Why couldn’t you do a smaller store? Seeing as you’re not doing any baking on premises, why couldn’t you do something like a satellite store like you see in Fort Edward or other communities? MR. LAPPER-We’ll address that in our submission. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to hear an answer now. Why wait? MR. BURKE-This is a satellite store. This is the smallest store we can build today. Fort Edward should have never been built, and that’s why the guy that owned isn’t in business anymore. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you expound upon that? MR. BURKE-Yes. It’s too small. It doesn’t work. We just expanded it a month ago, and if we could make it bigger yet, we would again. The store doesn’t work. We bought it as part of a package. It’s not functional. MR. MAC EWAN-From the aspect of what? MR. BURKE-It’s too small. There’s no storage room. There’s no prep area. The sales area is too small. It doesn’t work. We can’t service our customers. The site’s too small. The building’s too small. Given an option to do that deal today, as a blank canvas, it wouldn’t get done. First of all, Dunkin wouldn’t approve it. Second of all, they’d have to find somebody other than us to build it and operate it, because we wouldn’t go there. So, what you see is our best thinking around how to accomplish what we need to do as business people and still meet the needs of the municipality and the community. MR. MAC EWAN-Will this proposed store do any baking there whatsoever? Or, I mean, when you say prep area, what do you mean by a prep area? What are you doing? MR. BURKE-Well, we make bagels on site. We bake our bagels on site. MR. MAC EWAN-So you do do some baking on site? MR. BURKE-Yes. All day long, small batches of bagels. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BURKE-Muffins, croissants, scones, and the list changes. Cookies, you know, brownies, all that kind of, you know, bakery stuff. So that’s all made on site throughout the day. I think our neighbors have illustrated the point that we’re trying to make to the Board, and that is very simply, you have an intolerable condition. I didn’t create it. I inherited it, trying to make it better, and everything that we have proposed to you is the distillation of 25 years experience in this business. My brother and are the largest franchisee operators in the Capital District of Dunkin Donuts shops. We’ve been doing it for a quarter of a century. We know what we’re doing. We’ve got sites with drive-thrus, the one you alluded to in Saratoga, smaller site, we put a drive-thru in there. We get a delivery truck there. There’s a 60 foot truck, well maybe the distribution center could send us a 48 foot, and could he jack knife the thing between those two poles, very easily he could, absolutely. So you have a situation that doesn’t work today. We all agree on that. I don’t want to be held hostage to the past. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not holding you hostage. We’re trying to improve, just like you are. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. BURKE-Exactly, and what we have submitted to you is our best thinking about how to accomplish what you want and what we need, and to find those balance points that satisfy everybody. We want to be good neighbors. MR. LAPPER-We’ll making a submission addressing these. MR. BURKE-Absolutely. Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. BURKE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. METIVIER-May I ask a question? Have you, I could be way out of base here. Is there any possibility, since you’re going to demolish the building anyway, why don’t you move it up to the road, have your parking in the back? I mean, wouldn’t that alleviate so many problems? You’ll add parking. MR. BURKE-I did that once. I won’t do it again. Madison Avenue in Albany. Parking behind the building doesn’t work in a retail situation, particularly when, you know, you need to have that drive-thru. You couldn’t do it. MR. METIVIER-You could still do a drive-thru. There’s a lot of places where your drive-thru is, you have to go around the parking area to, you know, MR. BURKE-Right. We’ve examined that and rejected it as unworkable. MR. METIVIER-But in this particular, I mean, your proposal here might be unworkable, too, so, I mean, couldn’t you at least think about it. MR. BURKE-Certainly, yes. I don’t mean to say that we won’t consider other options. We have looked at that as one of the things that we could do. Having done that, it didn’t pan out. It didn’t work for us. So we rejected it as a concept and decided not to waste anymore time or money. MR. METIVIER-I mean, is it because any time you have parking behind the building you have to go to the front of the building? MR. BURKE-Well, it’s a convenience factor for customers, partly. You park in a remote area and then have to walk through the drive lane and cross the parking lot, particularly in inclement weather. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. BURKE-People don’t do that. MR. METIVIER-Right. MR. BURKE-And you don’t have that kind of situation. MR. METIVIER-Well, I’m not looking at walking through the drive lane. I’m thinking if you pull the whole building up to the front where the green space is, and then just have all your parking right behind there, you’ll have a side entrance as opposed to the front entrance that you have today, and then your drive lanes would be, you’d pull out and go around, and you could almost have it be arrows. You could still have your drive-thru, but everything is just behind you instead of in front of you. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a 75 foot corridor overlay in there. MR. METIVIER-Do you know what I’m saying? I mean, here’s an opportunity to actually correct a bad situation. So, you know, I realize you may have a 75 foot variance, but, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got one more question for him. In any of the other stores, the property that you own, have you had a situation where you have an unusual situation like we have property owners in the back who have an easement through your property to get to their property? MR. BURKE-No. In Saratoga there’s a common driveway between Pizza Hut, McDonald’s and us, and, you know, we added a drive-thru and we have tractor trailers and we have deliveries and everything else and garbage pick ups, and it still functions. This site will function. Better than it does today. MR. STROUGH-Well, it might, but I don’t want to be put in a situation where you come back with a plan and we find it unacceptable and nobody’s happy. Have you talked to Auto Zone to see if you could expand your property and work with them, at least get an easement from them? MR. BURKE-No, I haven’t discussed that with them. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, there’s a potential possibility that might resolve a lot of problems. MR. LAPPER-We can approach them. MR. STROUGH-But also Mr. Doty pointed out that the proposed planting strips, and I’m all for planting strips, but where it’s located might really encumber the parking for the computer place. I mean, you may, when you consider your reconfiguration and solving your solutions and the problems here so that when we come by we can have an application we can accept and approve and you can go ahead, that that’s one of the problems you may want to take a serious look at. MR. LAPPER-Well, that issue, what you’re talking about is that green space along the side there, their parking, I believe including within the State right of way, in that building, they’ve added a couple of new tenants. I mean, so that, I think they’ve got five tenants among their various buildings. MR. STROUGH-Well, we want to do a happy neighbor policy. MR. LAPPER-I know. MR. MAC EWAN-Jon, it’s a tradeoff. I mean, one of his concerns was that they’re parking in that area now, and then this would help alleviate that parking, they may have to use another entrance to get into that, other than cutting through the Dunkin Donuts lot. MR. LAPPER-Well, they’ve got their parking lot, they’ve got their parking spaces. They’d lose those spaces if it was a drive aisle. MR. STROUGH-When you’re re-piecing the puzzle together, at least consider something in that area. MR. LAPPER-We will be imaginative, but we know that we’ve got a small site. We’re trying to make it a lot better, and we know the neighbors aren’t happy, but we can’t really solve their problems. We’ll come back with the answers that you’ve asked for. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to take five and let them put together the resolution to table it. I’ve been having Cathy keep notes, all right. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy and Bob, would you put that together. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you ready? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’m ready. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Tabled with the following conditions: 1. Revise the lighting plan. We want to see cut sheets to meet the Town Code. 2. CT Male’s comments will be addressed. 3. Parking Space #6 to be eliminated and landscaped. 4. We’d like to see an alternative architectural design. 5. That there be a traffic analysis that peak hour numbers would be given that would demonstrate the worst case scenario that won’t block parking. 6. Show that the delivery truck will be able to park, etc., without encroaching on adjacent property, and that CT Male will provide an independent analysis of traffic flow, truck delivery capabilities, and/or limitations. 7. We would like Staff to verify with DEC if a permit is needed to work in that area by the stream where the riprap is going. 8. We’d like an empirical stormwater analysis and plan. 9. We’d like the utility locations to be noted on the site plans. 10. In that landscaped area adjacent to Route 9, that a tree is to be planted, one that won’t cave in with all the salt. 11. The applicant will try to make every reasonable effort to address the adjacent landowners concerns, but not be limited to the parking capabilities for vehicles in tow or campers, etc. 12. Additional spot locations to be added to the stormwater plan. 13. Provide a snow removal plan to mitigate space to park. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-All set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-On those tree species that you’re looking for, for the, Staff’s got a listing. MR. HILTON-Also, the public hearing has been left open on this. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. HILTON-It’s not going to be re-advertised. We should probably kind of get some kind of idea for the members of the public here as to when this will be heard next. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t want to venture out on that limb, only because there was a very long list of things they need to come up with. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-I would guess probably we would see them in April. MR. HILTON-Absolutely. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2003 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DONALD KRUGER AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI LOCATION: 74 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 6.00 ACRE LOT INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.64 AC., 1.80 AC. AND 2.56 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 43-98 TAX MAP NO. 309.17-10-23.2 137-2-4.5 LOT SIZE: 6.00 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-We have a Final Stage subdivision of a Preliminary, or pardon me of a subdivision that was approved for Preliminary subdivision last week by the Planning Board. As a condition of that approval, language was to be included for Town Counsel to review concerning the cross easements and access easements. There’s been a note put on the plat. As far as any language for review, I’d defer to Town Counsel on how they want to handle that, but otherwise, the subdivision as proposed meets the requirements of the LI zone. That’s all I have at this time. MS. RADNER-If I may, the suggestion that Town Counsel review the easement language didn’t come from Town Counsel. That wasn’t a condition we saw as necessary. Your Board felt that they wanted to do that. What we received from Mr. Nace was the language that’s going to be placed on the plat itself, indicating that there will be cross easements. I had discussions with Mr. Nace today indicating that we hadn’t seen the actual easement language. What was planned by the applicant, in terms of whether one person would own it or there would be one major owner or each of them would have easements over the others, there’s several different ways you could do it legally and achieve the results. I don’t know whether you feel you need to see that or not. I think that’s a determination you need to make. They have indicated on the plats that there will be a deeded cross easement. The benefit, from the legal point of view, in having both, and I think we’ve gone over this before, so I apologize to the extent that, for some of you, we’ve been down this road before. If you have an indication in a site plan or in a subdivision that there is going to be certain easements or accesses, things of that nature, that can be enforced by the Town, but it can’t be enforced by the adjoining property owners. The benefit of deeding something doesn’t really affect the Town as much as it affects the neighboring property owners. So that if, for example, the owner of Lot A is being denied access across the 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) property of Owner B, they can civilly sue that property owner so that they have their access as set forth in their deed. It would be to their benefit. So with that said, I’ll let you guys determine whether or not you need more. MR. MAC EWAN-Question. If we were to conditionally approve this so that they would submit you written language for you to review, at the time that they submit the plat for signature? MS. RADNER-That would be fine, but I’d like some direction from you what your concerns are, so that I know what I’m looking for. If your concerns on that they want that language to have maintenance type agreement or a clear indication of who will plow the easement. MR. MAC EWAN-It might be a moot point. Is there anybody on the Board that’s got concerns? MR. STROUGH-Well, it says in the subdivision the Planning Board may require, a filing of a written agreement, but I don’t think it says it has to require this. It just says the plat will be endorsed with the necessary agreements in connection. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody have any big issues with that, though, whether we have or do not have? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a moot point. Any comments? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions? MR. RINGER-Well, you asked me why I closed the public hearing. I closed the public hearing last week because we just had a Preliminary application in front of us and nothing more. That’s why I opened it and closed it, and then Counsel told us we didn’t have to have a, we may, if we wish, have a public hearing for the Final, but we did not need to have one. MR. STROUGH-I think you’re safe in offering it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think Mr. Michaels wants to comment on this application. Okay. If someone would like to introduce a motion, and there’s no discussion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2003 DONALD KRUGER, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by Subdivision No. 3-2003 Applicant / Owner: Donald Kruger FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering Type: Unlisted Zone: LI Location: 74 Big Boom Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 6.00 acre lot into 3 lots of 1.64 ac., 1.80 ac. and 2.56 acres. Cross Reference: SP 43-98 Tax Map No. 309.17-1-23.2 / 137-2-4.5 Lot size: 6.00 acres / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: February 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 2/19/03, and 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on February 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 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 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 25th day of February, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan MR. MAC EWAN-Can I ask a silly question. Why didn’t you knock both of these off last week? MS. RADNER-Because of that issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Because of that issue. Was it on for both Preliminary and Final? MR. NACE-No, it was not on. We did not have a final application submitted. MR. RINGER-We didn’t have the application or I would have done it last week. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-My oversight. MR. SANFORD-You had a little bit of a wait for this one. MR. MAC EWAN-I offered to put you to the head of the line and you didn’t want to. MR. NACE-We have one other item we’d like to, five minutes of discussion from the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Five minute discussion item. MR. NACE-Okay. Now what I have is a concept subdivision plan that will be on for review in March, okay, but we’d like some preliminary input from the Board, if we could, because we’d like to forge ahead with our engineering plans for this prior to the concept review meeting, so that we can submit in March for Preliminary and Final review in April, but at any rate, this is a 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) subdivision out on Corinth Road. You know where Hudson Pointe is. Out beyond Hudson Pointe there’s the Inspiration Park subdivision. This is the back end of Hudson Pointe. Here’s Inspiration Park. The piece of land with the house here, going back here, Dave Michaels, I guess closed on today. So he presently owns it, and we’re going to be coming in with an 18 lot subdivision for that. It’s the one acre zone. It’ll be a single road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s right before the “V” in the road. Right? MR. NACE-What we’re proposing is a single road cul de sac, a boulevard entry back to the end of the first lots. The length of the cul de sac would be less than 1,000 feet. The property has a fairly steep bank at the back end of it. This bank sort of runs up also through Hudson Pointe, but as it gets up there it’s not as steep. We’ve tried to configure things so that the cul de sac would be kept in the front of that bank and the lots through the cul de sac would have enough room for building without having to disturb any of that little drop off or any of the area beyond that. So that could kind of be kept as a buffer to the Hudson Pointe development. MR. VOLLARO-Is this the one acre zone, Tom? MR. NACE-This is one acre. We’re proposing clustering to a minor extent. I think our smallest lot in here is .83 acres. We’re proposing 18 lots. The total acreage is 24.7 acres. When you take the road out, you’re left with 22.8. So, you know, 18 lots on almost 23 acres. MR. STROUGH-So what’s the zoning? MR. NACE-The zoning is one acre, okay. MR. STROUGH-Single family? MR. NACE-It’s SR-1A. MR. STROUGH-Suburban? MR. NACE-Yes. SR, not SFR. Not single family, Suburban Residential One Acre. Okay. So it does allow clustering, and we’re doing that really to keep the length of the road so it doesn’t have to, so we don’t have to deal with this, keep the road shorter. The lots are still 150 feet wide. MR. VOLLARO-What are you going to do with nine and ten? MR. NACE-Those would just be left as part of these lots, but the buildable area on these lots would be up front. MR. STROUGH-Now, if you read the intent of clustering, that the applicant can cluster if there’s going to be some benefit to the community. MR. NACE-One of the benefits here is a shorter road, not having to deal with that, leaving a buffer to an existing development. MR. SANFORD-He’s not shaving much off of an acre on. MR. NACE-No. MR. SANFORD-About .85 is what. MR. NACE-Yes. Most of the lots are .86. MR. STROUGH-I’m just saying that those questions are going to come up, and that’s why you’re here. Right? 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. NACE-Exactly, to get your input. MR. RINGER-You’re coming in March for Sketch, right? MR. NACE-Right, but we are continuing to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-My suggestion, you know, that’s what you’re here for, I would rather see one less lot on each side, because really this isn’t usable land. MR. NACE-Yes, it is usable. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It is? Okay. MR. NACE-Sure. We can bring the road back and do some grading in here and make this all usable. We’ve laid it out with one acre lots, and we can do it. MR. MAC EWAN-What would you do in the event that you developed this thing and you show your footprint of your houses on these two lots being located in that area, and you’ve got a potential homeowner that says, no, I want some privacy. I want my house back here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. NACE-Would you be willing to stipulate a no build? DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-(Lost words) house location? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, absolutely. We do that all the time. We designate the building area of the lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The part of Hudson Pointe that comes in, Tom, where is the nursery, the day care center? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not even on that picture. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but just tell me where. MR. NACE-The day care center is, here’s the power line. The day care center is right here. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s down farther, actually. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. It’s just past the power lines. MR. NACE-Yes. Here’s the power lines. It’s just past, it’s right here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. That’s what I thought. Okay. MR. NACE-You can kind of see, here’s that little drop off is right through here, this light area in here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How far down does it go? MR. NACE-How far down the property? 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, the drop off. MR. NACE-Well, it’s fairly steep in here, and it runs up through, it actually goes up through Hudson Pointe, but where it goes through Hudson Pointe it’s not as steep. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I know. Okay. MR. STROUGH-But by clustering it, the benefit to the community is the back end of that possibly could be tied into a trail system that the community has got planned or currently uses? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I was thinking. MR. STROUGH-I mean, some kind of amenity for a community use is what we mean by a benefit, not a shorter road. That’s not going to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, John, I know what you’re saying, because I was thinking if that’s where the day care center is, then adjacent to that is the basketball court or the tennis court, and then there’s the trails out by the river, and I was just wondering if there was a way that you could access that in the back there. MR. MICHAELS-See, the way that (lost words) laid out, the back of the property backs up to the lots that are on that vertical road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what about the end lot, who owns? Where the end lot is, who owns the rest of that land there? MR. MAC EWAN-If you look what he’s got delineated on the map, it’s very hard to see, there’s a road, a continuous road that’s going to go down through there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right there, Tom. MR. NACE-Okay. That’s, that was part of the original Hudson Pointe subdivision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And was there going to be a Stewart’s store or something up there? MR. NACE-Yes, over on a commercial site over here that has not materialized. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. NACE-But there certainly could be. I mean, this, I think, is a homeowners association property. There certainly could be a trail left or an access point left through from your cul de sac where residents in this community could have access to a trail system. It’s not municipal. MR. STROUGH-George, you had a clarification, right? MR. HILTON-Well, not a clarification, just to give you what we were thinking about. First of all, this application is going to be before you, the Planning Board, in March as a Sketch Plan, and we don’t have any comments available yet, but what we’ve been looking at is the application of the cluster provision, which calls for common open space and some benefit to the Town for the increased density. So that’ll come up for discussion. I think also when you consider the slopes on the property, and undevelopable areas, that discussion, at least, will come up, as part of the Sketch Plan review, and also some provision for tying in to some trail system or some access down to the river, the existing nature trails to the east. That’s also going to come up. I just wanted to lay that out on the table and let you know what we’re looking at and what you’re going to see from us in March. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where’s the horse barn, the stables, buck something stables? Is that right there where the”V” is? 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right where the open area is right there. MR. NACE-Is that this where you’re talking here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right there? That’s what I thought. MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, Dave’s right, the only access we have to the back is on HOA land, which there’s no means of control over or, you know, making them accept any access across that land. MR. SANFORD-I was just curious. According to this, it looks like it’s a 10 foot drop off. I’m not sure over what distance it drops off 10 feet. MR. NACE-This is 100 scale. So it’s 10 feet over about 40. MR. SANFORD-I mean, I wouldn’t think that would present that kind of a grade where you couldn’t do something. MR. MICHAELS-We walked the whole site. The grades are not (lost words) at all. MR. NACE-Right. We could do something that requires grading, and, you know, working the land more to do it. We felt that there was some benefit to having a shorter road, and leaving, you know, a space in the back that would be a buffer, and that that benefit certainly outweighed having lots that were, you know, seventeen hundredths of an acre less than the zone. Okay. MR. MICHAELS-These lots are modeled very closely to what we call the State lots at Hudson Pointe, the back end we’d have the higher end lots that have the wider width of 120, 150. These are all at least 150, but anyway, our vision for here is, you know, creating higher end product, fully landscaped, higher end product, nicer home site lots. We were attracted by this setting, you know, after walking it, the trees and we could leave considerable green space on each lot, natural trees for this sized lots. Even though we’re clustering, we’re still having a very big lot for a single family residence. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know that boulevard effect that you have going at Hudson Pointe is so attractive. MR. NACE-That would be the same thing here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, because I see the road is very wide. MR. NACE-I think what you’re looking at there was a garden at one time. Let’s see, there’s a road that comes down here. Yes, somebody had a fairly large garden back in here at one time. There’s another little drop off right in here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where does Jane McCray go in? MR. NACE-We have a signoff letter from Cathy. She’s looked at it and is satisfied that there’s not. It’s fairly recently disturbed open area. John was asking about blue lupine because there is that one open area that had been a garden. Cathy O’Brien has looked at the site, and has given us a signoff letter. Marilyn Ryba has a copy of that. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. We got that (lost words) because we wouldn’t have closed on the property if that was an issue, and we had that all done. MR. RINGER-That’s a good move. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. NACE-So I guess really the big question is how you would look at the clustering at this point, whether we’re on the right track to ask for the clustering, or whether we should go back, you know, re-think and go back to a standard one acre lot, which would push this back further. MR. STROUGH-Well, by the time, you’ve got to take out from your density calculations any slope exceeding 25%. So, I don’t know if that pertains to any part of that back property. MR. NACE-It might a little bit, but we have, I mean, we’re 18 lots in 22 and a half acres. MR. STROUGH-So we may be in a situation where we may end up eliminating one of the lots anyway because of the density calculation. MR. NACE-No. I don’t think that’s the case. Okay. The only area that might be steeper than 25 is a strip in there. MR. STROUGH-I’m going to emphasize, for a clustering, there’s got to be some benefit to the community, such as open space or a trail system. I mean, you know, I’m just giving you some examples, some benefit to the community. MR. VOLLARO-One of the benefits they could put forward is a shorter road and less (lost word). MR. STROUGH-No, that’s not really the intent of clustering, is so that you can have a shorter road, although that’s good design, and it can go hand and hand as an argument for clustering, but there’s not a community amenity coming out of it, other than you say, well, there’s a shorter road to plow. I don’t think that meets the concept of the intent. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to fill the hole, John, is what we’re trying to do. MR. MAC EWAN-You know what they’ll be looking for. MR. MICHAELS-Well, versus a conventional subdivision, this layout is much more preferable, in terms of the grading and how the roads are laid out. MR. STROUGH-That may be true. MR. MICHAELS-And that’s one advantage of clustering. We thought clustering was really the highest and best use. We’re not trying to make 20,000 square foot lots here. MR. RINGER-One of the things with clustering is you should show us an alternate plan anyway. That way it would make things a little bit better if you showed us an alternate plan. MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. MR. STROUGH-But the idea behind clustering is that the applicant gains a benefit and the community gains a benefit, in the sense that the community is benefiting from an amenity like open space or something else. MR. MAC EWAN-The clustering provision in the Ordinance pretty clearly states what the benefits are, what you’re supposed to achieve by doing the clustering. Just look at the Ordinance and come up with something and see what you can put together. MR. NACE-Okay. Any other thoughts? MR. VOLLARO-You’re not shaving much off those lots. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 2/25/03) MR. RINGER-For completeness, it looks like a good thing, but we were looking to give something, you know, to gain something. MR. MAC EWAN-The parcels obviously got some restrictions to it. MR. MICHAELS-I appreciate everybody’s comments this late at night. I’m sure everybody’s tired. Thanks for taking the time. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 71