Loading...
12-17-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2015 INDEX Site Plan No. 67-2015 Robert& Renee Little (Trustees) 1. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-19 Subdivision No. 9-2015 Gordon & Cynthia Hoyt 4. PRELIMINARY & Tax Map No. 290.-1-94 FINAL STAGE DISCUSSION ITEM Faden Enterprises, Inc. 5. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-49, 309.10-1-48, 309.10-1-47 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN PAUL SCHONEWOLF, SECRETARY DAVID DEEB GEORGE FERONE THOMAS FORD BRAD MAGOWAN JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, December 17th. Happy holidays everybody. For members of the audience, there's copies of the agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. We do have a public hearing scheduled on one of our projects anyway. With that, I'll introduce the first item under Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 67-2015 SEAR TYPE TYPE II ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE (TRUSTEES) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING, LITTLE & O'CONNOR, PHINNEY DESIGN GROUP ZONING WR LOCATION 20 PIONEER POINT, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TEARDOWN OF SINGLE FAMILY 1,305 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,730 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) TO A TWO STORY MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT WALKOUT AT 2,985 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. APPLICANT PROPOSES SHORELINE PLANTINGS, PERMEABLE PAVERS AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC AS PART OF PROJECT. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MEASURES ALSO. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NEW HOME WITHIN 50 FT. AND 15% SLOPE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1- 19 SECTION 179-6-060 TOM HUTCHINS & JACE BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-So I take it they made it through the Zoning Board last night. MRS. MOORE-They made it through the Zoning Board. They were approved for their variances, and variances were granted for floor area, setback for the west side, front setback and shoreline setback as well has having a lot that has no road frontage. We did determine that they did not need a permeability variance. So they meet the requirement. They have 75.9%. So, other than that, there's no new information, other than the permeability variance not being needed. MR. HUNSINGER-So I don't know if we really need to hear another presentation, since we just heard it on Tuesday. MR. HUTCHINS-No, that was our intent was not to repeat anything we went through. Just to comment that, yes, we did receive the variances, and we've confirmed with Staff that we don't need permeability, and we're good with that. This is the product that's the reinforced turf that actually gets installed in the topsoil layer. Gives it some sheer strength. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you pass that around? I'd be curious to see that. MR. HUTCHINS-This is a typical one. It's not necessarily the one that'll get used. MR. HUNSINGER-So are they all that shallow? MR. HUTCHINS-Some are deeper, depending on the loading. That's just a typical one. That's a low loading verso, but it's the one that I happened to have in the office. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-1 would have thought that there'd be a lot more to it than that. MR. DEEB-Yes. It looks light. MR. HUTCH INS-Well, that's just a sample. They're big sheets, and they link together. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-And you say they can drive on that? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, you put that within the topsoil layer and you cover it with topsoil and it gives it so that the topsoil, it gives it some sheer strength, so that when a wheel goes over it it doesn't. MR. HUNSINGER-Doesn't compact. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There's one at the Kitchen's there in their driveway. Right? It's wider than that, it's bigger than that. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. Well, there's different versions, but that's a typical thing. You don't see it. It's permeable. It's beneath the surface. MR. FORD-Tom, thank you for your leadership in addressing this permeability issue, particularly around our watershed. MR. HUTCHINS-Well, it's important, and we saw that we could do it, and when you go there in the field and look at where the actual area is that we've converted, it totally makes sense because it's not going to get driven on. MR. FORD-We appreciate your leadership in that regard. MR. HUTCHINS-And I think Jace and Nicole have one thing they wanted to discuss that came up the other night that they've enhanced some of their plans. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not sure if you introduce yourselves. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, yes. MR. BROWN-Jace Brown, Phinney Design Group. Nicole Simpano and Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. So the one piece of information we didn't have on Tuesday evening, again, all of our previous presentation stands with the exception of the fact that the permeability has been brought into compliance with that little modification we just discussed. We did produce a lakeside rendering just to clarify it. The fact that we are not removing any of those trees. This is a photo taken this summer. This is the residence. This is that walkout area. As you can see that stair really occludes that and these are all new plants in that landscaping plan. I do have that. I can bring any of these up if you'd like to see them, but that is the most occurring view from out in the waterbody, and this is a little cove right here. This one neighbor would have a little bit of a different perspective but they're really blocked by their own trees on their own lot. So we just wanted to add that for clarification purposes. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Board? Any outstanding concerns? MR. FORD-1 have none. MR. FERONE-We went over it pretty good the other night. MR. HUTCHINS-These two, this is a great example of designing a house for a site. It's not a case where you started with a house design and you had to make it fit on the site. They truly designed the house to fit the site, and you can see that with the stepping out. MR. FORD-It shows, and that's appreciated. Thank you. MR. BROWN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-1 appreciated the architecture, too. I thought that was a little unusual. I thought it was really interesting. If there's no other questions from the Board, we do have a 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There's no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let the record show no comments were received. I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is a Type II SEQR so no SEQR review is required, and with that, unless there's some other question or comment from members of the Board, I'll entertain a motion. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#67-2015 ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE (TRUSTEES) The applicant has submitted an application to the Planning Board for Site Plan approval pursuant to Article 9 of the Town zoning Ordinance for: Applicant proposes teardown of single family 1,305 sq. ft. building to construct a new 1,730 sq. ft. (footprint) to a two story main floor and basement walkout at 2,985 sq. ft. floor area. Applicant proposes shoreline plantings, permeable pavers and installation of a new septic as part of project. Storm water management measures also. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 of the Zoning Ordinance, new home within 50 ft. and 15% slope shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site plan application on 12/17/2015 and continued the public hearing to 12/17/2015 when it was closed, The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 12/17/2015. The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval, MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 67-2015 ROBERT & RENEE LITTLE (TRUSTEES), Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following where the property owner is responsible for the following: 1) Waivers request rg anted: g. site lighting, h. signage, m land use district, n traffic, o. commercial alterations/ construction details, r construction/demolition disposal, s snow removal. 2) The resolution is to be on Page 1 of final submitted plans. 3) The applicant must meet with the Code Compliance Officer after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work; 4) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff, the approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator and all documentation as part of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan —including an NOI, SPDES General/Individual Permit if part of project. 5) Project and Site development as determined by the Planning Board (Board to review and strike items that are not applicable) a. The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff; b. Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; c. Waterline connection plan must be submitted to the Water Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) d. When curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office; e. Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans; f. The applicant must submit an approved plan/report of the following to the Town for projects that are subject to Chapter 147 Stormwater for disturbance: i. The project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan); ii. The project NOI (Notice of Intent) and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project if required iii. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 6) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with the project as proposed and all other conditions of this resolution; 7) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; 8) Submission of As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy/ certificate of completion/ code compliance approval. 9) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 17th day of December 2015 by the following vote: MR. SCHONEWOLF-The no cut buffer zone, that was in it before, wasn't it? MRS. MOORE-Correct, but the Board has the opportunity to strike any items from 5a through 5f. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Does the Board want to strike anything? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we strike all of them. MR. FERONE-1 thought we struck them the other night. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I did, too. MR. FERONE-Or we discussed striking them. MRS. MOORE-That was a different application. MR. HUNSINGER-That was a different application. I think we strike all of them. Yes. Right? MRS. MOORE-Right. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. DEEB-Happy Holidays. MR. HUNSINGER-Next item on the agenda is Subdivision 9-2015. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2015 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, PC OWNER(S) GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT ZONING MDR LOCATION CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE LOT OF 2.361 ACRES AND ONE LOT OF 2.342 ACRES. APPLICANT DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME BUT INTENDS IT FOR SALE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 68-2011, SUB 4-2008M WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 4.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-94 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-And you had indicated they'd asked to be tabled. MRS. MOORE-Correct. This applicant has asked to be tabled. They will not be able to attend tonight's meeting, and I received a letter from their attorney. MR. HUNSINGER-And what we discussed before the meeting was tabling this to the February 16, 2016 meeting. If someone would like to make that motion. RESOLUTION TABLING SUB# 9-2015 GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2015 GORDON & CYNTHIA HOYT, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Tabled to the February 16, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And the public hearing for that project will also be tabled to the 16th of February. Next on the agenda is a discussion item for Faden Enterprises, Inc. DISCUSSION SEAR TYPE N/A FADEN ENTERPRISES, INC. AGENT(S) LANSING ENTERPRISES, PC OWNER(S) ROBERT GOODWIN ZONING MS LOCATION 75, 77 & 79 MAIN STREET DISCUSSION: APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THREE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO BE REPLACED BY THREE BUILDINGS: ONE RETAIL BUILDING AT 8,200 SQ. FT., ONE RETAIL BUILDING AT 1,600 SQ. FT. AND ONE BANK BUILDING AT 2,400 SQ. FT. WITH A DRIVE THRU. PROJECT WOULD INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF 70 PARKING SPACES, LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGE AND REDUCE LOTS FROM THREE TO TWO. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9-040 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, APPLICANT MAY PRESENT A SKETCH TO RECEIVE COMMENTS AND FEEDBACK FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE MAY 2015 DISCUSSION WARREN CO. REFERRAL N/A LOT SIZE 1.12 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-49, 309.10-1-48, 309.10-1-47 SECTION 179-9-040 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RUSS FADEN, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This is a discussion item. The applicant proposes demolition of three existing residential buildings to be replaced by three buildings. One is a retail building at 8,200 square feet. The second one is also a retail building at 1,600 square feet, and then a bank building at 2,400 square feet with a drive thru. This project also includes 70 parking spaces, landscaping, signage and reduce three lots to two and in your Staff Notes you received comments addressing the Main Street guidelines. There's several sections in the Code about Main Street. I printed that information out and I created a chart. MR. FORD-That was very helpful. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering. I'm also here with Russ Faden. We're here for Faden Enterprises. It's a mixed use commercial site plan, located on Main Street corridor. What I'd like to do is go through first the objectives. Basically what we're here for is just a conceptual presentation to the Board. Prior to going through the time, money, effort to prepare details drawings, we thought it would be a good idea to kind of bounce off the Board out thoughts for the site. Again, ultimately we do recognize that we have to go to the Zoning Board for several variances that we are requesting and here for Site Plan Review. So we thought it would be a good idea to get input from the Board prior to taking those steps. Basically existing conditions, the size of the parcel, 1.08 acres. There are three parcels, overall, that make up the overall parcel. They are divided roughly in this vicinity. There are three existing residences on the three individual parcels, and again, as I did mention, it is zoned MS, which is the Main Street zoning. We do have Pine Street in this area and Main Street down on the south end of the parcel. For our proposed conditions, we are proposing a demolition of the three structures on the overall parcel. We're proposing three buildings for a 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) total of 12,200 square feet overall. The three buildings would include, first off Building Number One, which is approximately 8,200 feet would be divided between the building. We're anticipating different uses within the building. First use would be a use for a Subway franchise, approximately 2200 square feet, and then the balance of the square footage, the other 6,000 square feet would be for a retail kind of wrapping around the front and wrapping around the back portion of the building. Building Number Two is proposed to be a bank that is on the corner of Pine Street and Main Street. We are proposing a drive thru facility on the northern side of that building, discharging out onto Pine Street, and that building is approximately 2400 square feet. Last but not least is Building Number Three which would be a retail building, and that building is approximately 1600 square feet. Access for the parcel, we are proposing two access points. One would be directly on Main Street, another one on Pine Street, and again, as I did mention, there'd be the discharge area for the proposed drive thru on the site. Sidewalk system, we do have the Main Street sidewalk going along the frontage of the parcel, and we do have a sidewalk system going in, interconnecting all the buildings to one another and to Main Street as well, and obviously to the parking system also. We do have an outdoor dining area, the Subway restaurant. It is shown fairly well on the renderings for the building. There would be a dining area wrapping around the side and towards the front of the building. So there would be a portion in this area and wrapping around the front of the building on Main Street. It would not impede the sidewalk or pedestrian access along Main Street. It would be set back off of the main area, the main travel ways. As far as parking for the site, we do have 70 parking space. We do outline on our plans the required parking for each one of the individual buildings and we do feel that we meet the Town Code as far as parking for the overall parcel. As far as buffers, we are proposing a planted buffer to the residential uses to the north of the parcel. There is one area in this vicinity where this is. Unfortunately there's no room for plantings so we're proposing a fence in that area as a buffer to that residential use, and that fence, the exact type of that fence has not been determined but we do understand that chain link is not permitted so it will be some form of a stockade fence or an opaque barrier, and that would be something that we could hopefully work with the Board on during Preliminary and Final review. As far as utilities, water, storm, sewer, the project would be served by public water, public sewer. Stormwater would be managed on site. With the parcel, we do have several variances that we are asking for. There are variances that we understand we have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for, and then there are a couple of waivers or variances that we understand that this Board can consider. First we'll go through the Zoning Board of Appeals variances that we're requesting. First is relative to sign setback. We are proposing a pylon, standing type sign in the front portion of the parcel. It's our understanding that the required setback is 15 feet, which, given the setbacks that are required for the buildings, a 15 foot setback would put that sign back behind the building, so what we'd like to do is ask for a variance down to five feet. So we'd be asking for a 10 foot variance to push that building out front. Also so that as people drive by they'll be able to see that sign. It won't be obscured by the building itself. So that is variance number one. Variances Number Two and Three are relative to the signage. The applicant would like to have a Subway franchise on the parcel. So this is the location of the Subway sign that would be on the building itself. Also there would be another Subway sign on the pylon sign that we had just referenced. That sign is proposed to be internally lit and that's something that we're requiring a variance for for both of those signs. So variances two and three would be for an internally lit sign. It's the applicant's experience with other facilities that the internally lit sign is something that helps them to attract customers and identify the shop for other customers. I did have one shop where it did not have an internally lit sign. It was something they had a difficult time with patrons trying to find his restaurant. So we're asking for a variance on that. Number Four is relative to the drive thru. The drive thru is not permitted this distance away from Route 87. So we're asking for a variance to allow the drive thru for the parcel and last but not least, as far as Zoning Board of Appeals variances that we are requesting is relative to the setback from Pine Street. We are showing the building is basically on the property line, 2 Pine Street, and it's our understanding that there is a 20 foot setback for that so we are asking for relief on that. Those are the Zoning Board of Appeals variances. There are two variances that, again, we understand are something that the Planning Board can provide a waiver or variance for. First one there is percent frontage coverage, basically the coverage of the lots on the Main Street area. It's our understanding that is a 60% requirement, and on the one lot we are dividing into the two lots, the one lot is 51%. The other one we actually do meet the 60% requirement, and if you average them we're roughly 55%. So we're asking for a nine percent variance on the one lot where we, I'm sorry that's Lot Number Two, not this other lot over here, and the other waiver or variance we're asking from the Planning Board is relative to the buffer to the different zone. We have a residential use in the back portion of the parcel. It does outline a 50 foot buffer area. We are proposing both the plantings and the fence to mitigate that, but we are asking for a waiver or variance from that 50 foot setback. So that's essentially the plan and the variances that we are presenting this evening, and again we're here tonight to request the Board's input and feedback and provide us some guidance so that we can move forward with our plans and go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and hopefully come back with preliminary and final plans for this site. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-So you're going to rip down the Subway building up the street. Right? MR. FADEN-Just re-locate. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You're not going to have two Subway buildings that close. MR. FADEN-No. We would move out of that location, and I'm not sure what the new tenant would be. MR. SCHONEWOLF-I see. MR. FERONE-On that separate sign out by the street, I think you referred to it as the pylon sign, is that just going to be for the Subway franchise or will it be for other tenants that would be in that complex? MR. LANSING-1 would imagine it would be part of the entire complex of the identification for the retail use in the back as well as the other retail use on the front. MR. FERONE-Do you have some sense of what size that would be? Mr. LANSING-We haven't identified exactly what that size is yet. We will provide that as we move forward. MR. FORD-How much, let me re-phrase. Are there possibilities for getting away from that zero setback on that side street, Pine Street? MR. LANSING-On Pine Street? If anything we setback, obviously we have a parking rhythm in here, with an aisle with a parking stalls on each side which are for the Subway. Anything we set back would reduce the size of those structures and obviously we'd like to keep the commercial area up as much as we can along that Main Street corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you consider other layouts and designs? And perhaps the one that would first come to mind, and I thought that's what we had talked about once before, was an L- shaped building, fronting Pine Street and Main Street. MR. LANSING-We have looked at many different concepts. We've worked with the applicant on many different layouts, and this is the one that works best for the applicant's needs and for other space for potential tenants. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I was just thinking if you only had a, just a drive aisle coming in from Main Street you wouldn't need, you know, parking on both sides, and that would allow you to maybe move the buildings back a little bit off Pine Street. MR. LANSING-Yes, no, again, we have looked at many different layouts. This is the layout that they had wanted. MR. FORD-And that has been addressed, specifically? MR. LANSING-Yes. MR. FADEN-One of the biggest things with this layout, too, just from being in the food business, is having, you know, parking in front is ideal for Subway and fast food, you know, having parking on the side isn't, you know, isn't what we want, but having parking on the side of the business definitely helps. Having parking in the rear of the building, and the L-shape, I think when we came back, we were here maybe three or four months ago, we had that design, and one of the reasons why we're doing it like this, too, is I had to re-structure my contract with that parcel to kind of divide it into two separate contracts, because when we do this, the initial Phase One is going to be, the building on the right is going to be 4,000 square feet. That's going to be Phase One, you know, I'm not a big time developer. This is going to be developed over time. I'm not able to do everything at once. So in order for this to work for me, we had to set it up like this and kind of do it in phases. That's why one big L-shaped building wouldn't work. MR. HUNSINGER-So that would, you almost answered my next question, which was, have you identified a bank for the bank location. MR. FADEN-No, we have not yet. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, okay. MR. FADEN-But it is actually being marketed, and so Building Two and Building Three and even the rear of Building One, those are all going to be built to suit. I'm not in a position to build it and hope they come. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FADEN-It will be more build to suit. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Once again, this puts what we originally said eight months ago that this is the location, these are the locations that are ideal for small commercial. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Not residential. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Can you address the other, I mean, obviously the Main Street plan, Building One, can you address the reasons why that's not up to the build to line? MR. LANSING-Actually that might be a misinterpretation on our part of the Code. In reading the Code there were some sections where it talked about minimum 40 feet, maximum 100, and we were close to that 40 foot line. So that's something that, maybe that's something that we need a further interpretation on. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LANSING-Even in the table that was provided in the notes, it does, in different areas, talk about minimum 40, maximum of 100, and again, we're close to that. So we thought we were in the right area on that. We could push that up to the 40 foot line if that's something that the Board desires. It would take away a little bit of that green which we kind of liked as a separation from the main sidewalk on Main Street and the dining area in front. So it would take away from that green area, which, again, which we kind of liked. The only place where it does become a problem is on Building Number Two. If we push that up to the front of the line, we either have to clip the corner of that building or decrease the size of that building which is something we'd rather not do. So I guess we're looking, maybe, for some guidance on if it's a minimum 40, maximum of 100, or if it absolutely has to be 40 to the build to line. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, what it reads is that in all instances the minimum setback is preferred. MRS. MOORE-Right. So if they don't reach 40, then it triggers a Special Use Permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it adds another layer. Yes. MR. FADEN-What's the setback right now? MR. LANSING-We're like 45 feet. MR. FADEN-And if you look at the rendering, our plan is to have, you know, four or five foot awnings off the building. Does that count at all towards any setbacks? MR. HUNSINGER-That was another question I was going to ask you. MRS. MOORE-1 think it assists in that. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I think it's always measured as the furthest point of the building. MRS. MOORE-Right, but where existing conditions fail to meet the build to requirements, street scape elements or building additions should be adequate to achieve the desired effect. So this applicant is proposing awnings. So it may be. MR. FADEN-So those would count you think? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-Right, and the building elevation wasn't provided at the time that I completed that chart. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, so if your awnings bring you to that 40 feet, you'd be good. MR. LANSING-And I believe they do. I believe the awnings, I'll check with the architect. I believe we do meet it with these overhangs right here, and we could do the same on the bank. MR. FERONE-And you're not going to build these buildings until you get tenants, you know, separately. How would you proceed with the development of the lot? Are you going to put like all of your parking in, or just a certain portion of it to service the one building and then expand it as each building goes? MR. FADEN-Yes. Probably what we would do is, so coming up Main Street, all of that would go to the back, and then left out there. So that would all be developed with parking, then to the left, you know, none to the right and the back. Going back behind the residential houses. MR. LANSING-The thought was is this right here would be Phase 1. So come in and over. We wouldn't need, obviously, that much parking for that. It's a smaller amount of area, and this was added on and wrap around. Obviously balance the parking. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The parking would follow the construction, precede the construction but only through the area that you need it. MR. LANSING-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think with your design the one element that troubles me the most is the internally lit signs. Because that's something that we discourage everywhere. We do have lots of developers that have provided lighted signs with, you know, like some sort of a light that shines to the sign. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. FORD-1 concur. MR. DEEB-We didn't allow it for Dollar General. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we didn't allow Dollar General to put in an internally lit sign. MR. DEEB-I think if we did that it would be setting a precedent, and a bad precedent. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-So that internal lighting concerns me a lot. MR. FADEN-I guess one of the biggest things, and I understand where you guys are coming from. I have a store in Downtown Broadway Saratoga that had the same thing, the gooseneck lighting, it was like a wood sign, and, you know, Subway is one of those brands that, you know, it's like McDonald's with the golden arches, you know, people know that sign, and I know even though it's up on the road, I know for a fact, being right on Broadway with thousands of cars that drive by every day, people would drive right by our store and not even know we're there. Because it had the gooseneck lighting, and at night it's really hard to see. MR. SCHONEWOLF-That's because there's so much light around right there. It doesn't stand out. MR. FADEN-It doesn't stand out. Again, it's, you know, a classy sign, you know, it's something that I really, really would urge you guys to give us a variance for this. I know you guys are going for that downtown feel. You can tell with the outdoor seating it's going to have, I think, the look and feel that you want for Main Street, with an outdoor Bistro type of look, but as far as signs. MR. FORD-1 appreciate your concern and your presentation, but you wouldn't be here the next time we had to address an applicant who wanted another one or the third one or the fifth one or the seventh one. MR. DEEB-Or the previous one. MR. FORD-Or the previous one that's out of compliance, and suddenly we're going to have a dozen internally lit signs down Main Street. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. SCHONEWOLF-Have you considered different illumination possibilities on those signs? MR. FADEN-I mean, you can do a reverse lit, which the light shines back and it, you know, it doesn't illuminate out. I guess my question is it the look or is it the, the look of the sign or you don't want the light coming out, you know, going towards the road? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, we don't want 16 different signs. That's what we're liable to get. McDonald's will want one. They're not here, but they're going to be here for their place up there, and you want one, because your company's put a lot of money into that design and that appearance and that means something, but I've seen other companies that have adjusted them a little bit with the type of bulbs and the type of light that they put on the sign, and that's one way of getting around it. MR. FADEN-I mean, I'm not opposed to that. I mean, I work with a real good sign guy. I guess I would just need to know what, maybe I could ask him what other type of lighting there is. MR. FORD-Good. MR. FADEN-All right. So if it's not internally lit, if it's reverse lit, would that work? MRS. MOORE-I'm not clear on what reverse lit lighting is. MS. WHITE-Are there any examples, locally, of a reverse lit sign that we can take a look at? MR. FADEN-I can bring some. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Yes. MR. FADEN-And what about the pylon sign? MR. DEEB-Again, that's internally lit and I think the same procedure applies. MR. FORD-1 agree. MR. SCHONEWOLF-We have pylon signs. Don't we have pylon signs? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they're not lit. MR. MAGOWAN-Also, too, you're going to have it 10 feet out, you know, five feet off the setback, you know, so it's going to be definitely closer to the road. So even the headlights are, you know, at night are going to be shining on the sign. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, you can alter that by what you make the sign out of. What reflects, what doesn't. MR. FADEN-Let me talk to my sign guy again. I'm more than willing, visibility, as you guys know, it's huge for any business, but I can, let me go back to the drawing board and see if I can get some examples. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-You're here to have us share our observations and concerns, and we've done that and take it and run with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to talk about the building design? Any comments on the building design? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Well, it fits in. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I like it. That's why I wanted to bring it up. What kind of color scheme are you thinking of? MR. FADEN-We haven't gotten into that too far yet, but it would be a, I'm thinking maybe like grays or tans. MR. HUNSINGER-Earth tone. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. FADEN-Something like that, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FADEN-You can see there's going to be a lot of windows there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, no red, white and blues. MR. FORD-That's very appealing. MR. FADEN-The one thing, too, which is nice about this, and I'm not just a developer. I have a business here. So this is going to be a little more, you know, detail with it. MR. FORD-1 tell you one thing, you're going to be able to see through those windows. Right? MR. FADEN-Yes. MR. FORD-As opposed to building a window, then blocking the back of it. You weren't here for the other presentation. We went there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FADEN-There would be awnings going all the way around the front and side of the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think it looks nice. MR. SCHONEWOLF-And very functional, too, there, you've got a lot of sun coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-What other input can we give you? I mean, we're always big on landscaping. I guess without specific buildings for the other two, it's kind of hard to really give you a lot of input on landscaping. Would it be your intent that you would come back for Site Plan Review for those buildings when and if the time came? MR. FADEN-Yes. I mean, I think we'd be looking for approval maybe just for the footprint, but as far as design. Because I don't even, you know, maybe some other building besides a bank may come and need a drive thru. I just don't know what's coming, but, yes, we'd come back before you guys. MR. SCHONEWOLF-There aren't any banks around that. MR. DEEB-Do you have any anticipated date to try and complete this that you're hoping for, the phases? MR. FADEN-The project? Phase I we hope to start in April, you know, we'd be done in the middle of the summer, and like I said, a lot of it just depends on, I mean, we're going to be marketing that entire site and once, you know, somebody has interest, I've already talked to the bank, and then we'll develop it. MR. DEEB-So you're going to build a 2200 square foot Subway first? MR. FADEN-We actually will do about 4,000, the whole front half of that Building One first. MR. DEEB-Okay. I see. MR. FADEN-It would be Subway and one other business. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Good, because the other one's too hard to get at. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other feedback that we can give you this evening? Did you have any other specific questions you wanted to ask us while you're here? MR. LANSING-1 do not have any. I think we've touched on the main items that we were here for. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, we always find these discussions really valuable, and I think it's, I mean, as you pointed out at the beginning, helpful for you as well, you know, before you get a lot of money spent on design, to get our input. MR. FADEN-What do you guys think about the drive thru? MR. DEEB-Well, if it's going to be a bank, you're going to need a drive thru. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, what's the bank think about it? Because there's dollars attached to that. MR. FORD-1 like the concept, but it furthers my concern about zero setback, and visibility. MR. FERONE-There's not a lot of space for cars to wait in line. If you get more than a few cars wanting to go through that drive thru, they might back up on Pine Street as well. MR. FADEN-Well, they would come off Main. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it would be one way off Main. MR. FERONE-So they'd be exiting onto Pine Street. MR. DEEB-Exiting onto Pine Street, not coming in. Yes, the drive thru would be going that way. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it your feeling that all traffic would exit onto Pine? MR. FADEN-I would say probably most. MR. HUNSINGER-1 mean, you could come right onto Main, but it would be tough to take a left. MR. FADEN-Yes, they could, but I'm assuming most people would exit onto Pine, and a lot of people probably would come from the back side of Pine, you know, if they know the area. MR. FORD-Just be concerned with line of sight if you would, please. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-It's possible, just as a suggestion, is to include some sort of traffic generation numbers that may be moving through the site. MR. FADEN-All through the site? MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, once he knows what he's putting in there. MR. FADEN-Yes, I mean, I know pretty much what Subway would do. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Banks are relative to the size of the bank and the different functions it has. MR. FADEN-Yes. So your concern would be people coming off of Pine with visibility, or Main? MR. FORD-Or out of the bank or exiting from the back structure or from Subway. MR. LANSING-So basically off these areas off on Pine Street. Is that correct? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. LANSING-The buildings are set back such that intersection sight distance, it does meet the setback. Fourteen feet is the typical distance from the edge of pavement to where a person would be sitting in a vehicle for line of sight. We did take a look at that and make sure that we were in compliance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, how about the corner of Pine and Main? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) MR. LANSING-Same thing. We are significantly further back at that point. So these are the tightest areas, coming out of the drive thru, coming out of the back of the parking lot. That's where we're close to that 14 foot number. We're in the 20 and 25 foot range, probably 20 feet on the corner. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to comment. MR. FADEN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're welcome. So the other item on our agenda is a discussion of Officers for the Planning Board for 2016, and there's a draft resolution that's been provided by Staff. RESOLUTION NOMINATING CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR 2016 P.B. CHAIRMAN MOTION TO NOMINATE CHRIS HUNSINGER FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2016. Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. FORD-And that is with our thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, everyone. I appreciate the vote of confidence. MR. FERONE-We appreciate your leadership. MR. FORD-You're a real leader. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn't have a chance to talk to Steve Traver about continuing on as Vice Chairman. I would assume that he would find it acceptable. MR. DEEB-He's not here. MR. FERONE-That's what he gets for not being here tonight. We nominate him. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I agree. If anyone would like to make that motion. MR. DEEB-Is he okay with it? MR. HUNSINGER-1 assume he is. He didn't say he wasn't. RESOLUTION NOMINATING STEPHEN TRAVER FOR 2016 P.B. VICE CHAIRMAN MOTION TO NOMINATE STEPHEN TRAVER FOR VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2016. Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jamie White: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And finally a motion to nominate a secretary. MR. FORD-1 will nominate Paul Schonewolf for secretary. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to continue on as secretary? MR. SCHONEWOLF-I will continue on for one more year. I'm gone after that. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/17/2015) RESOLUTION NOMINATING PAUL SCHONEWOLF FOR 2016 P.B. SECRETARY MOTION TO NOMINATE PAUL SCHONEWOLF FOR SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR 2016. Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Congratulations. MR. MAGOWAN-Congratulations. MR. FORD-And thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you to Staff for another great year. Another busy year. Another productive year. Happy Holidays to everybody. MR. DEEB-You're gone? MR. FORD-1 am. MR. DEEB-You're leaving. We'll see you when you get back. Have a great winter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Tom will be gone in January. MR. FORD-Starting in January. MR. HUNSINGER-1 already told Jamie to plan to be here. MR. FORD-I'll be back sometime in April. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. FORD-1 move we adjourn for 2015. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 17, 2015, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Ferone: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ford, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 15