Loading...
2001-09-04 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO LARRY RINGER ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CHRIS ROUND PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 FEIS PYRAMID CO./AVIATION MALL PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL THE PLANNING BOARD IS SCHEDULED TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS STATEMENT FOR ADOPTION. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A +/- 125,000 SF GLA DEPARTMENT STORE ADDITION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. ALL USES IN ESC ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-98/SP 14-98 TB ACCEPTANCE OF FEIS: 8/6/01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/13/01, 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-1, 98-1-2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, 5.3, 98-5-4.1 LOT SIZE: 64.86 +/- ACRES SECTION: 179-27.1 JON LAPPER & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-The first order of business is adopt the Findings Statement. MR. ROUND-Yes. The SEQRA Findings Statement, you’ll recall from our last meeting on August 21, the Board had several suggestions on how to clarify the SEQRA Findings. You should have st received a marked up copy with those changes noted last Friday, and what we did, if we just turn to page, and I’ll walk you through, Page Two, one of the clarifications was, what exactly is the net expansion? We’ve used terminology throughout the Findings Statement, the Town Board did, and the Planning Board wanted some additional language added to that, and what we had added was, the top of Page Two, fifth sentence down, this net expansion will result in the physical addition of 101,500 square feet GLA, Gross Leasable Area, to the Aviation Mall, and I think that clarified it, without going in and explaining the various breakouts of how this project could be sized and measured. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to make a comment. The math still doesn’t add up. I’m not going to contest it, but the math doesn’t add up. Having said that, that’s finished in my mind, but you can continue. MR. LAPPER-Well, there’s a 2500 that’s rounded. So it’s the plus or minus. MR. ROUND-Yes, the one figure that’s in there. A 70,000 square foot modified project is not an accurate number. It’s a number used loosely, and you’re correct. Those numbers do not add up. MR. VOLLARO-Let the record show that, and thank you very much. MR. ROUND-And I apologize that we didn’t correct that with a number more to your liking, but the same change is made on Page Three, Item Three, modified project, says 101,500 on that page. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only thing I saw in this one. MR. ROUND-I think those were the two or three references. Those are the three references to the building size that we changed, and also the applicant has resubmitted plans, making similar 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) corrections on their plans. The last change we had some discussion about how to make sure that the Planning Board or the Town Board could utilize this Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee that they’ll be receiving for some improvement other than an improvement to 9 and 254 intersection. You remember Mark Schachner offered the one sentence that we have included at the bottom of Page 13. It says, this Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee may also be utilized by the Town for traffic improvements at other locations which are reasonably related to the function of the Route 9 and 254 intersection. We’ve shared all the changes we had made with the applicant. They had suggested a similar but different language, and generally we are comfortable with the sentence we had drafted and I think the Planning Board was comfortable with that sentence as well, at the August 21 meeting. So the st SEQRA Findings have been changed, hopefully to your satisfaction, that you could entertain them. MR. LAPPER-We’d like to discuss just one comment, after the Board discussed it, on the last one that Chris mentioned. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. LAPPER-I guess, just for clarification’s sake, the sentence that was added, “This traffic impact mitigation fee may also be utilized by the Town for traffic improvements at other locations which are reasonably related to the function of the Route 9/254 intersection”. The language we had suggested would have tied it to the impacts identified in the SEQRA record, and what the applicant is concerned about, as long as the Board, you’re adding something that was different than what the Town Board did, further clarification, addition, and we were more comfortable with it without that language. What we’re concerned about is, if the Town wanted to spend the money on Warren Street and Quaker Road, which somebody could make the argument that it’s reasonably related to the 9 and 254 intersection, because, arguably, anything could take traffic out of that intersection, but it might not benefit the Mall, and the applicant would rather that the money was tied to an impact of the Mall, and we think that under SEQRA it should be. So we think that language softens it up a little too much, but I guess we’d be comfortable as long as the Board, as long as it’s your intention that it should be tied to an impact of the Mall. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that was the intention all along, and I thought that’s what we all agreed to last month, when we changed that around, that we discussed the avenue of whether, you know, when does an action relative to how close it is to the Mall, and I think we’re trying to tie that in, so that one of the issues came up, like with Foster Avenue extension. Well, that was relative to the expansion of the Mall, and it’s relative to loosening up the traffic woos of 254 and 9. I would agree with you. If we’re trying to adjust traffic impacts at 9 and 149, I don’t know how that impacts the Mall and how that trickles down, but I thought we were all in agreement that if we added this last phrase to it, it was going to satisfy everyone’s concerns. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Does everyone else feel the same way? MR. METIVIER-I agree with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any discussion by Board members? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Just on Number 10 of SEQRA Findings, Page 14. Is there a way to get a time certain put into 10, when it talks the applicant shall, this is after the 60 day period, that the applicant shall submit an interim landscaping plan, but there’s no time certain there. It’s pretty much left open loop. MR. ROUND-I envision what we would do, if we don’t have word of a tenant, that we’ll request site plan review, or request that landscaping plan. Sixty days was meant to do that. So if they don’t submit it, what happens, I guess is what you’re asking. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. There’s no time certain. MR. ROUND-I don’t know. Maybe the applicant has something more to offer on that particular element. MR. LAPPER-We expect that we’ll have a tenant open and operating on October 15. So we don’t th think that the landscaping plan’s going to become an issue. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t know that that’s a good answer. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. If you don’t? MR. LAPPER-I’m only hesitating, only because we’ve been working towards that tenant and getting that all set, but 30 days after the 60 days, perhaps, we’ll submit a plan. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I happen to have written down. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted. What else? Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-That was the only thing that I really picked up in here. Because I reviewed this second statement of August 27 against the 8/6 document, and the only things I really see in there that’s changed is the two references to the math, the math correction and Mark’s traffic impact mitigation. Those are the only things that I saw that were different than what I had proposed, on Page 14, Item 10. I have no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Trying to work out the math again. So we’re basically talking about a building addition that, in terms of total construction, will be 125,000 square feet. Now, part of that 125,000 square feet, okay, will be a reconstruction of what’s currently there, to the tune of 23,500 square feet. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Which leaves us with a 101,500 square foot actual physical addition. MR. LAPPER-Plus or minus, as Bob would say. MR. STROUGH-Plus or minus. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Plus or minus 2500, John. MR. STROUGH-Now, it also says in the same paragraph, I’m on Page Two in the top paragraph, that upon completion, the overall size of the Aviation Mall will be 661,000 square feet GLA. Now, let me get your opinion on this. GLA used in this manner is not entirely accurate, is it? Because it’s not total Gross Leasable Area. MR. LAPPER-It is total Gross Leasable. What’s not leased, the Food Court area, the Mall where the kiosks are, where people walk in the Mall, that’s not GLA. So the actual building is bigger than that, but the definition in the Town Code is Gross Leasable Area for this type of a facility. MR. STROUGH-The actual building, but if I go on the site plan, and on the cover sheet, it says total construction, 557,000 square feet. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. That takes out the 34,000 that was at one time approved. We tried to roll in. MR. STROUGH-That way we mentioned, we talked about last time. I noticed that. Okay. No, I don’t think that is Gross Leasable Area. Is it? I mean, that’s just the total size, square footage of the building. MR. PITTENGER-No, it’s all GLA, I believe. MR. LAPPER-Yes, it’s all GLA. MR. STROUGH-So the actual size of the building is bigger than that? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. PITTENGER-I believe so. MR. LAPPER-Yes, this is the rented tenant space, but the Mall area is not counted. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, but part of the problem is you go through this GLA, and you’re talking about 150,000 square foot potential in the northwest section of the Mall, but that might not be all GLA either. I mean, I don’t know how that’s going to be configured, but potentially it might not be all GLA. MR. LAPPER-You count parking requirements based on GLA and traffic based on GLA. In terms of, what happened, what we anticipate is that there would either be a freestanding facility, or there would be a facility connected to the Mall, and if it was connected to the Mall, it would probably have, other than GLA, if it was freestanding, it would most likely, the entire thing would be the GLA. There wouldn’t be any Mall space, but, theoretically, there could be a connection. MR. STROUGH-Well, then what we’re talking about, the physical addition of 101,500 square feet GLA. MR. LAPPER-In this particular case, with this first store, there is no new additional Mall space. So it’s GLA and it’s also LA. It’s all GLA, yes. There’s no additional Mall space. MR. STROUGH-And no one knows, then, the actual physical size of the Mall? MR. PITTENGER-I don’t know. No one knows that. MR. LAPPER-Someone knows it. We just don’t know. MR. STROUGH-Because if we’re talking about GLA, and you say the Mall is actually. MR. LAPPER-Because the Code talks, for an Enclosed Shopping Mall, the Town Code talks about GLA. MR. STROUGH-It would just be nice to know, you know, all these might start fitting into place, as they don’t, because when I switch back and forth and subtract and add what’s supposed to be and what’s proposed, nothing adds up. MR. ROUND-It does change regularly, John. I know when, anytime a new store comes in, even though it might not require site plan review, and we issue a building permit for it, it may consume some common area that’s not included in GLA. I think your point’s well taken, and maybe they can submit, at the time of building permit, here’s what’s existing GLA. Here’s what’s common space, a breakdown of those internal site issues, not external. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess, I need to know, what are you driving at? Are we not beating a dead horse here on this issue or what? MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, I just like everything to match up so that I get an understanding of exactly what’s going on, and when I have figures given here, I would like the figures to all fall into place, nice and neatly. I don’t think that the use of GLA is appropriate in all cases, in these Findings studies. I think it’s sometimes just thrown in. I often thought to myself, while reading this, that if you just use square foot, forget the GLA, everything might have fallen into place a little bit easier, and then broke out later on what part of that will be GLA, but that didn’t happen, and I’m just wondering. Now, the 150,000 square foot unit that we’re looking at tentatively approving the concept of, at least part of the SEQRA process. MR. LAPPER-That would be the maximum. MR. STROUGH-Okay, that’s the maximum size. MR. LAPPER-GLA, tenant space. MR. STROUGH-Okay, GLA. So could it be 170,000 square feet and only 150,000 of it’s going to be GLA? MR. LAPPER-Yes, but that would be subject to site plan review by this Board. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it could actually be bigger than 150,000 square feet, but only 150,000 of it could be Gross Leasable Area. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. LAPPER-Right, and that’s because in the Enclosed Shopping Mall district, everything counts, based upon GLA. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s good clarification. That’s what I suspected, but a lot of that does not surface in this. MR. VOLLARO-John, can I help you out for a second here, or just have a little conversation with you? MR. STROUGH-Yes, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-If the 70,000 square feet that’s in here. MR. STROUGH-You mean actually 67,500. MR. VOLLARO-If it was 67,500, he wouldn’t be having this mathematical regurgitation here. MR. STROUGH-Yes, we would, because there’s other problems, too, Bob, if you take a look at the total constructed building of 557,000, okay, and you add the 101,500 that they’re proposing will be the actual physical addition, we come out to 658,500, for a total square foot GLA. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. STROUGH-But that doesn’t match up with the total. MR. LAPPER-Because one of the numbers is rounded up to 70,000, just as a round number, and that’s the extent of it. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know, I don’t like taking 67,500 and rounding it to 70. MR. VOLLARO-That was what they did, though. That’s the root cause of this mathematical disconnect. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like to move this along a little bit, because I think the Board, as a whole, is comfortable with what we’re seeing here. MR. STROUGH-Well, you might be. MR. RINGER-Well, it gets down to the what counts factors, and what difference is it going to make in your vote, one way or the other? MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I’m just trying to nail down something. Okay. Upon completion of the future development, the overall size of the Mall will be 811,000 square feet GLA. Actually, the physical Mall will be bigger than that. MR. LAPPER-But we’re saying GLA. MR. STROUGH-And this would be just GLA. The actual physical Mall will be larger than that. I just want my Planning Board members to understand that what you’re reading is not the total picture, okay. Not that it bothers me. It’s just what bothers me is none of these figures fell into place, as did Bob notice that. Then that’s the only comment that I had, as far as the Findings go, is that I just wish that these numbers had been straightened up and clarified to the point where, you know, you take the average reader, like myself, and everything just kind of fell into place. They’re not as clear as I would like them to be, but just as long as it’s in the minutes that, you know, in the future, when we deal with this, I think I’d like you to break out the total square footage and the GLA, just for possibly Bob and I, I guess. MR. LAPPER-Now that we know your request, we hope to be back soon. MR. MAC EWAN- MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where are you getting 811? MR. STROUGH-When you add the 661,000, and the 150,000 proposed GLA, you’ll get 811,000. MR. HUNSINGER-The bottom of Page Three, the very last sentence. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I was still up on the top of Page Two. Yes, okay. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you see what I’m saying, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-I understand what you’re saying. MR. STROUGH-All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I did the same thing as Bob did, and I’m sure everyone else did, is compared the latest revision against the one we had looked at at our last meeting, and, you know, picked up the changes that had been made. I think it’s great news that I think you have a possible tenant for the Seven Steers restaurant. I think everyone will certainly agree with that. That’s great news for the community. I mean, I certainly didn’t have anything. I thought it looked great. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m fine. Is it possible for you to tell us who the new tenant is after this evening? MR. LAPPER-Bob’s the announcement guy. BOB ORLANDO MR. ORLANDO-We still are at the mercy of the tenant, as it relates to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Which one are you talking about, the Seven Steers or the new structure? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m talking about the new structure, right here? MR. MAC EWAN-I think the application’s right on Target, at this point. Anything else? Any other discussion? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve just set aside discussions on SEQRA Findings. MR. ROUND-Yes. You need to adopt a Findings Statement, positive Findings Statement, and move forward through the process. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like Bob to introduce it, if you could, please, and add that amendment to it. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT REVISED DATED AUGUST 27, 2001, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: As written, with the following change, on Page 14, Item 10. If the tenant has not committed to occupy such space within 60 days, than this interim plan shall be submitted within the 30 days, the interim plan being the landscape plan. Duly adopted this 4th day of September 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, let’s move on. MR. ROUND-Frank, do you want to step up as well here? You’ll notice, from our previous meeting, the applicant had responded to several items that the Planning Board had raised, as well as Sear Brown had raised, and you should have in front of you an August 31 comment letter from Sear st Brown, and that reflects the most recent submission by Pyramid Companies, and we received a response to those comments today, and I don’t know if you want to walk through them individually, or have you had an opportunity to review both of those documents? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Everybody has. Why don’t we just go through, topic by topic, and address each one of the reasons why we tabled it. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. ROUND-Okay. Sure. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Chris, you mentioned that there was a response from the applicant to the August 31? MR. ROUND-Yes. There was. Did that get copied? Do you have copies tonight? MR. LAPPER-We have the full set of plans. Mostly we just made minor changes, really, to satisfy Frank, and Russ can go through them. MR. ROUND-Typically, we let the applicant read our, if you want to read our comment letter and you want to respond to each one of those. That might be the most efficient way. Then if you have a comment, or you want clarification from Frank. MR. MAC EWAN-You guys do it. MR. ROUND-Okay. Frank, I’ll let you roll with Item One. FRANK PALUMBO MR. PALUMBO-We’ve almost got it figured out. In our comment, we had, I think, five comments that were really general in nature. Just to sum up, one of the big issues that we had in our first comment letter were many of the questions about stormwater. We feel satisfied with the work that they did to revise those, and so I’ll answer any of your questions tonight on stormwater, but we felt that the revisions that they made didn’t warrant further comments from us on the stormwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-What we did discuss, though, the first comment that I had was regarding the internal circulation patterns, and I will allow Russ, in a second, probably to discuss a little bit about how the overall thing is in here. We did get into some specifics about the internal circulation, about making sure that, at some key points, that they did have adequate radii for the trucks that would be entering the site, and also my ongoing concern with the truck movements into the loading dock area, and I also raised the issue of the pedestrian crosswalk that had been raised in the first meeting, and as we looked at it, we just thought that there were maybe a few more conflicts, in terms of just the number of places where the pedestrians were crossing the vehicular traffic. So we raised that comment. What we did receive in the letter that Russ’s office sent up today, that Chris just showed me, was one area where they addressed the radii at the main, or the western entrance to the site where it meets the ring road. MR. LAPPER-By Friendly’s. MR. PALUMBO-And it appears that that additional radius, I guess Russ had asked you to maybe comment a little bit more on that. I think the 30 foot will do, but I had kind of maybe hoped to see that maybe a truck radius superimposed on that, so that the Board would know that it did meet everything, but we didn’t have trucks going up over the curb or crossing into the traffic lanes, but do you want to go, do you want to answer further on that, the circulation patterns? MR. PITTENGER-Sure, I’d be happy to. Chris raised some interesting questions, in our review, in our haste to revise the drawings and get them back in, a couple of things we’ve missed, that Frank raised. So what we did was we looked at the site plan and areas where we did have potential turning movement issues, but certainly with the 30 foot radius, a tractor trailer is more maneuverable than a fire truck, and a fire truck could make these radiuses. So I think that, I think unless there’s other issues, we’re willing to address each one as they come up. The existing driveway at the Friendly’s entrance has been, has really been reconfigured. The other two entrances have not appreciably been so. So I’m assuming that the one that we’ve changed, since now, is adequate, that we do address that. There is an issue with how trucks move through the site. We can certainly, you know, look at that. MR. VOLLARO-What drawing number are you working against? MR. PITTENGER-I’ll tell you as soon as I get there. I think, S-4. MR. VOLLARO-S-4. MR. PITTENGER-What we’ve done, in addition to the fax that I sent out earlier today to both Chris and to Frank, were sketches of how we’re going to deal with them, but we also revised the plans to reflect those changes. So this intersection here at the reconfigured Friendly’s entrance is the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) one that Frank had concerns about, and they were valid concerns, but with these more open radiuses, I think we have an opportunity for trucks to come in from either end, either the Friendly’s end or the Sears end, and if you look at your overall site plan, you’ll see that there are ample radiuses there. As far as maneuvering into the truck bay itself, we have a couple of alternatives. Undoubtedly, the deliveries are going to come from the Northway, but if I was going to be the one backing up into here, I would go past the Mall, come in the Sears entrance, come around the ring road, pull into here, and then back in on the driver’s side back, which makes it a lot easier to see where you’re going. It seems that it would be a shorter route to come in this way and back back. Certainly there’s a little bit more open throat here to facilitate that kind of movement, but I think that we have an opportunity for the trucks to do either way. While we’re talking about the truck and loading area, I just wanted to reiterate again that what we’ve tried to do, given this plan, we’ve tried to mitigate the situation in here that Frank’s concerned about and which, under normal circumstances, it’s cause for valid concern. Frank raised the point that the grade, as we had it was too steep, coming in here. There’s a potential that trucks could roll out, and we addressed that. In our initial design, this existing road comes here, and ties in right opposite the truck loading area, and what we did was to extend that and bring that up higher, and it really does two things for us. One is it moves that additional vehicular conflict out of the loading area. It also allows us more stacking space for our traffic plan. So that works very well from a traffic standpoint. The third thing that we did was to sign and stripe this out to alert cars through here that there’d be some truck movements happening, and the fourth thing that I think is the most telling is that we’re restricting, or that normal operations are that these deliveries do come in the morning, which when the Mall is not that highly used, and we anticipate no more than two deliveries a day of a large truck, and to me, that really gave me a better comfort level for the maneuvering in there, knowing that it was going to be one or two trucks a day. MR. HUNSINGER-How about Saturday deliveries? Do you anticipate Saturday deliveries as well? MR. PITTENGER-I’m not sure. I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Or is it just one to two a day, irrespective of the day of the week? MR. ORLANDO-I think traditionally the deliveries go Monday through Saturday. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-Frank has raised a couple of other questions about the fact that this Friendly’s parking lot is getting larger, and it’s entirely likely that people will be, as this parking lot fills up, they might be parking in here to go and utilize that for the store, and we’ve gone through several alternatives for how is the best way to connect the Mall to the existing pedestrian and bicycle circulation on Route 254, and we looked at a number of different alternatives, and we hit upon this one, but I’d be interested, if Frank has some ideas, I’d like to look at them. We could certainly entertain them. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. Mainly not just my ideas, but I just wanted to open it up for the Board, for consideration. When I saw how much larger the Friendly’s parking lot was, it’s about three and a half times, I think, in size. There were 38 spaces there initially for the Friendly’s, and if you made the assumption that the Friendly’s was going to do the same amount of business, then all the other, the new parking spaces in there, which they have 135 shown there, I made the assumption that a lot of those people were going to be crossing over, and that’s the main ring road that they would be crossing over. So I thought that where the good comment that came out of the Board at one point to connect a pedestrian access way to the sidewalk down along Aviation Road, that maybe a little bit more thought should be given as well to make sure that people that are coming out of the Friendly’s lot are crossing at that same point. Then, when I looked at the access way, and it is. It’s probably one of the better places you could have chosen it, but I think that that sidewalk where you cross the main ring road, you’re on a very tight sidewalk section there. It’s just basically the five foot island is the sidewalk, and you’re in between a drive lane and a parking area. Then you cross one of the driveway sections, and, again, you’re coming along that whole stretch, just on a sidewalk which is really a paved island at that point, right along the access way, and where you have then three crossing points, and I thought that maybe some treatment there of separating the sidewalk a little bit from the, you know, if you could find a way to widen that island, so that the sidewalk was not directly adjacent, and I thought you could also do something with the parking arrangement that you might be able to cut out one more of those crossing points. The ring road is going to be, we had this discussion when we were talking about the overall plan with the Town Board. When you put this building in the front there, the ring road becomes even more so critical because your parking areas are getting segmented by the building. So that front ring road is going to see, I think, you know, it sees a lot of traffic now, but it’s going to see even more, because I think a lot of times the people were coming up and using the road right in front of the building to get from one side to the other. Now you have to go around this new building. I think there’s going to be a substantial increase in the traffic on the ring road, that that was why I raised the question about people crossing there. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. MAC EWAN-It seems to be a potential for, just looking at it, it seems like there’s got to be a way we can improve that access there for pedestrian crossing. MR. VOLLARO-Could I ask a question I guess. Looking at that particular access, and then taking it in context against the entire ingress/egress to the Mall, what percentage of ingress/egress of the entire Mall comes on that little service road? MR. ORLANDO-The middle entrance? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. ORLANDO-As a percentage, how many cars? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Probably you don’t have that number now, but. MR. ORLANDO-I do. It’s 20%. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 20%. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s in the traffic study. MR. VOLLARO-So 80% of the people that egress/ingress from the Mall do it at other entrances and exits? MR. ORLANDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now I’m wondering if that 20% is worth the interface that we’re getting here between the walkway, between the pedestrian and the automobile. I guess that summarizes my question. How valuable is it? Maybe I ought to ask that. MR. PALUMBO-From one of the conversations that we had with DOT, I remember that they find that center entrance highly valuable because what it is is, as odd a configuration as it is, it has worked for a number of years, and it allows people to make the left in up there, rather than the left at the western most entrance, the main entrance. So they find it, presently, very valuable. They think it helps the system. MR. RINGER-It stops the stacking, too. Without that, people would be stacking back down to the Burger King, and you see many people who get into the lane and go up to that second entrance to get in, that are going west. I think it helps us prevent stacking on the eastern entrance. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. So to answer your question, Bob, I think, from an overall traffic perspective, it’s a fairly valuable entrance. MR. LAPPER-Bob, we tried to look at the potential areas to cross the ring road, and also to get to that entrance at the door, and looking at everything that was available, this seemed like the best plan, in terms of safe distance from the truck area, distance from the main intersections, and it also could be utilized, as Frank is asking, in terms of the people parking in the Friendly’s lot, that it would work for both pedestrians and bicyclists, and also people coming from that new parking lot. So we thought that it was the safest of the alternatives. MR. MAC EWAN-How wide is that sidewalk? MR. LAPPER-Five feet, Russ? MR. PITTENGER-Yes, it currently shows at five feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Can we increase the width of it? MR. PITTENGER-I was just looking at that. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s something that can be tackled simply by doubling the width of it and putting in striping, to delineate it even more clearer than what it is. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I think we could, because really, if you look at this configuration, as the parking lot narrows, heading down toward the truck loading area, there is an island that has two cars on one side and one car on the east side, and I think if we slide this whole row of parking down, we lose that car, we’ll gain 18 feet there, and we have an opportunity to widen that walk out to something like 10 feet perhaps, with some grass on the side. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. MAC EWAN-That would seem to make some sense. MR. PITTENGER-I think we could do, shove this down a little bit, and lose one car here, it’ll, you know, probably lose a couple of cars, but I think that this whole thing could work out a lot, to ease that, make that a little bit more of a thing. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the ultimate goal here is to have this thing, really, in reality, stick out like a sore thumb, so there’s no confusion as to what the pedestrian walkway is, versus, you know, car access aisles and such. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct, and in terms of the location, it makes a lot of sense, because I envision the traffic, as Frank described, coming from the Friendly’s lot, and also from the school or areas to the west that they come in. It doesn’t make sense to take them past this and then come back to the, it makes sense, when they see the entrance, that they know that’s, it’s fairly direct with the walkway. So, I think we can certainly do that. MR. MAC EWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel about that? MR. STROUGH-It sounds better. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What else do we have, Russ? MR. PITTENGER-Comment Three relates to the sanitary and the storm information. We do have slope and pipe sizes on our storm analysis, and I think that Frank’s concern is that we don’t really have accurate information on what our sanitary sewer line is doing in this area. Basically, what we do have is that we have a sanitary sewer line that runs through in front of the existing building, and then ties in down here to this existing. MR. VOLLARO-You’re on S-5? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. It may also be a little clearer on the demolition plan, but on this plan, the existing sewer line runs along the front of the Mall and then comes down to this manhole here, and what we’re proposing to do is to bring it and turn the corner here, and from existing grades we know it’s coming from 414. The ground gets higher, and then it drops. So between here and there we have a substantial drop, and even though we haven’t presented Sear Brown the information that verifies that we can do that, we have provided details from the sewer district, and indicating that we would abide with the crossings, and to do it according to their details and that. So there is some information that we don’t presently have, but we will provide, with drawings when we come for building permit. MR. LAPPER-Our proposal is that that would be a building permit issue. We have to get a sewer permit from the Town anyway, that conceptually, for the site plan, we know that it’s going from high to low, and even though we don’t have the exact elevations at this time, that would have to be determined for the detailed building plans for the building permit. So that could just be a building permit issue and a sewer permit issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you satisfied with that, Frank? MR. PALUMBO-Yes. It’s one of those that we could, it looks like everything should work, and it looks like when they do the final detailing of it, that there shouldn’t be a problem, but I know that this Board has seen plans much further along, so that you could be assured of that, that there wasn’t going to be something that they’d have to come back and say, well, we’re raising this or we’re doing this because the sanitary worked out this way. It really does look like everything should work, given the grade that they have. We just didn’t have anymore information. So I couldn’t 100% tell you, yes, everything works. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the gross drop from one to the other? It’s just a gross number. MR. PALUMBO-You’ve got quite a bit. You’re going from up at 414 in the building. MR. PITTENGER-And we were down to 404 here with the (lost word). So it’s a 10 foot drop. MR. PALUMBO-You’re down at 404. So you have 10 foot. So your sanitary is going to have no problem going there. The only problem would be how, if you had any crossings with your storm, and your storm was not as advantaged, vertically, you might be really locked into a storm pipe, especially since now you’re getting down into that area where you’re going to have all the drywells, that bank of drywells. They may not have as much play with their storm sewer. MR. VOLLARO-You mean in terms of how close they get to the storm sewer area? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALUMBO-But it really, it probably is something that, in this case, fitting it in with the existing site, with the grade that they have out there and the fact that the floor elevation is up at the same elevation as the Mall, and really sticking out at that floor elevation, that they should be able to work it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess I just have a question for Chris Round on this. Are you comfortable with that? Because it’s your Department that’s going to eventually put the stamp of approval on this. MR. ROUND-As Frank said, typically we have the sign off for the Departments at the time the Planning Board approves. We have done this before, and both the Water and Wastewater Departments will be issuing work permits. So if there’s something that conflicts, they will identify it, not our office. When it comes to storm, we’ll make sure that the engineer has it in hand as well. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-Point Number Four in the August 31 letter was a reasonable comment and st request. One of the issues that we had when we laid out this reserve parking area up here was this angle was too close to actually allow cars to park in there with the island, and Sear Brown noticed that and brought that to our attention. So we revised that, but did not revise the grading. So the grading still went into that old parking lot. So the second time around we got caught the second time, and now I think we got it straight, but what we did was re-graded this so that indeed the riprap and the slope is not part of the parking lot any longer. MR. MAC EWAN-Kind of like having your own personal checker, isn’t it? MR. PITTENGER-Yes, it is. As long as he doesn’t get anymore time to check it than I get to draw it, I think that’s okay. So I think we’ve satisfied that issue. A very important point is Point Number Five, and I think can best be talked about on the fax that I sent around. It’s a lot clearer. It’s related to the slope in this area of the truck loading and the entrance road. When we re-graded the, and actually raised the grade in the truck loading area, we were forced to deal with more slope in between the ring road and the center access road, and in looking and getting that at a bigger scale, looking at it, we had shown rip rap, slope protection in there, in an area that we had shown trees and so we looked at that more closely, and what we’re proposing to do is to do a section of erosion control and slope holding, at the lower end, and maintaining an upper end of at least six feet where we can put in our proposed plantings, and as we get doing the work in there, we’d like to save what existing trees we can, so we going to try and build tree wells to hold the ones, if we have an opportunity to save them, and also supplement the existing planting. Another thing that Frank asked about was to clarify the interface between the plantings and the utility lines. So we did do an overlay, which you do not have advantage of having, but the purpose being to really look at where the trees were falling, and where our utility lines were, and indeed, this is the loading area here, on this plan. There are a couple of trees that we had sitting pretty close on top of our sanitary line in here, but on our revised planting plan, which I’ll have available for Frank to take home, or for the Town tonight, we have adjusted those numbers, so that we obviously aren’t planting on top of manholes or existing structures. So we have done some coordination. This probably more clearly shows the reflected modifications, with rip rap below and then the pines above, and the existing pines to remain. MR. MAC EWAN-In reference to that area there, with the loading dock area, there was some discussion in the last meeting about concerns over the grade for the tractor trailers to park at the loading dock. Did you get that resolved? MR. PITTENGER-I believe, that, yes, that was resolved at the last go around. We did raise that grade considerably to get that down to a manageable two percent grade. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s in there, in the notes. MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, may I chime in on that landscaping issue? Because, Russ, I still am a little concerned about it. When we went through, and your role as well in the zoning modification process, and the SEQRA process, visual impact was certainly a big issue, and that area right along the drive, where it does have the rip rap and now what Russ is saying is that rip rap was I guess tightened up so that there’d be a little more green area to plant some of those trees at the upper part. When I 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) first saw it, I saw all the rip rap there and I said, this is not going to be very conducive to planting the trees that I think everyone was expecting, that the view of that corner of the building, as you come up, or westbound on Aviation Road, that building will be up higher. So that was one of the main intents of getting some good landscaping in there, and I guess I’m not 100% confident that that landscaping is going to do what people might have expected, and so I just wanted to raise that. Russ, I’m concerned with even the treatment of, if you shorten up that rip rap, but go to plant those trees up at that upper section, with those being the pines, and I think if everybody knows the nice pines that are out there, you can see the spread that you’ll get on those, and I’m concerned that if we place those up as close to the road as may need to be in order to still have that rip rap slope, that it’s only going to be a couple of years before those trees are, you know, into your drive lane and being trimmed back so that they’re not interfering with the ring road drive lane, and then they’re not doing what they were initially proposed to do, which is to provide adequate screening there. So, short of a retaining wall or something else that gives you a little bit more space, I don’t know exactly what’s going to have that landscaping be, grow into, and I don’t think anyone’s expecting it in Year One, but grow into the nice mature trees that you do have along there. So that was where my concern was coming from. MR. PITTENGER-What do you feel, for a planting width, would you feel comfortable with, in there? And then I think we’ll take your recommendation and either do a modular wall or something that is more attractive and gives us more opportunity, perhaps, to plant bigger material in there that has a real chance of survival, because I go by this site a lot, and those pines, they’re growing right up. They’re growing right out of the side slope. So it’s amazing that they’ve done as well as they have, and certainly it’s our intention to, as this is a very sensitive part of the building, although personally I don’t think you’re going to be able to see a lot of it. I think seeing it down from Friendly’s is a more prevalent view, but what would you suggest as an adequate planting width, if we could put some decent material in there? MR. PALUMBO-What’s the present width from the edge of the ring road to the edge of the access drive? MR. PITTENGER-I’m looking at this 20 scale plan that I faxed around, and at the tightest point, I’ve got about 17 feet, horizontal. MR. VOLLARO-What piece of that faxed information are you on? MR. MAC EWAN-Right here. You just measured down around the top of 404, 394 area. Right? MR. VOLLARO-Is that where you are? MR. PITTENGER-Yes, at the top 404 to 394. That’s about, I get about 17 feet there. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s it up here in the crosswalk, or that delineated striped area? MR. PITTENGER-I’ve got 23. MR. MAC EWAN-Twenty-three plus an angle like this, plus eight foot, eight foot high? MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about a wall? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not necessarily talking a wall. Actually, my preference would be screening all the way down that. MR. LAPPER-Because of the grade, you need something to hold back the soil. That’s why he has rip rap. MR. ROUND-You’re measuring between Aviation Road and the entrance drive, or the entrance drive and the? MR. PITTENGER-No, the contour 394 going up to the ring road at the access drive. I think we could get 10 feet of relatively gently sloped area up there if we did some modular walls or something, Frank, if you think that might be suitable. MR. PALUMBO-Russ, not that a three on one slope is the greatest thing to plant on, but, obviously, as you said, some of those trees are doing quite well on the slopes that they’re on there, and you can do the plantings on the three on one, where the rip raps in that area where you had one on one, if you went, say, out twelve feet and did three on one, what, if you ended up having a retaining wall say, you know, five feet off of the access road, out of that 17 feet, and the retaining wall were to parallel the access road, so you’d actually get a little more space as you moved ahead, how high of a wall do you think we’d be facing there? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. PITTENGER-It looks like five feet. I mean, we’ve got about 10 foot of grade change there. If we go twelve feet of three on one, that brings us down four. That gives us six. We’d have some play at the curb line there. So we’d be talking a five or six foot modular wall or something in that area. MR. PALUMBO-So your options are really, you could have a higher wall, which would keep that upper area flat, which would be the most conducive for the plantings, but then you’re also going to have the wall there, and the high wall, you know, some people have their feelings about what a wall looks like, and are we defeating the visual purpose there? If you took where they’ve got a two on one to a one on one, if you just took the three on one, you could get that wall to about what Russ is talking about, maybe about five feet high, and then plant in that area on the three on one slope, and the other option is if you left things the way they are, you might be able to change the type of vegetation they have and supplement the visual blockage with maybe a fence or some sort of screening up at the top. So you have a few options, and it’s just that that was a real critical area, to me, at least, from what I had heard through the process. MR. MAC EWAN-What kind of a length or a distance are you planning on building this wall? MR. PITTENGER-Currently, I’m proposing about 90 feet of length of rip rap, that varies from as much as seven to eight, you know, eight feet in width and height. It’s certainly another alternative. We could utilize some of the native materials, some of the, if we’re going to be excavating in here for the store, we might have some cobbles, we maybe could do a cobble wall, plant some vines on the bottom of it, achieve the same goal, try to maintain 12 foot of plant space above, where we could put our trees in, and do a rubble wall with some vines in it that would eventually come through there and soften that up considerably, and have the same effect, and still have a viable planting space. MR. VOLLARO- What about some of that pre-cast concrete I’ve seen around, that? There’s some of this pre-cast concrete with stone facing on it. The modular approach which would work pretty nicely in this application. MR. PITTENGER-It goes in fairly effectively. It’s not my money, though. So I hate to spend it. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Well, I could tell the guys in the back of you, we call them the suits. I understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we’ve got a lot of different ideas here. I think we’ve got to come up with something though. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s a question of economics. I mean, I think that they’ve got to decide whether they. MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Palumbo, the current rip rap appears to be about four foot off of the access road now. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And what you’re proposing, and that rip rap runs around 90 feet, if this is to scale. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And so what you’re proposing is possibly a five to six foot wall, retaining wall of some kind, and they’d be able to reduce the slope above that to the point where we might be able to get our Austrian Pines in. MR. PALUMBO-You’d be able to backfill that wall with good, loose, you know, growing material, soil that would really be giving the advantage to the planting materials. MR. STROUGH-So, if they did that, then, theoretically, they’d be able to pretty much stick to, generally speaking, the current plantings as proposed in the plan. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That would give them enough, effectively a three on one slope. MR. STROUGH-And it would also give us, too, enough of a picture so that we could find this acceptable, I think. MR. PITTENGER-There’s another issue that’s just been raised that I just want to throw out on the table, is that we have been avoiding trying to do any work in the DOT right of way because we’d 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) have to get a permit for that, but certainly there’s an opportunity, I’m not enamoured with the pines on the south side of this access road, only because it cuts the sun to that drive there, and if the sun ever hits it, it’s never going to thaw out in the winter, but there’s an alternative. We could also put screening in DOT right of way, if we got a permit, here, and also in here, and then alleviate the need for this. We wouldn’t quite have the height that you might get here, but you could propose the DOT to allow them to let us do some planting in here, which might solve the same issue. MR. MAC EWAN-How receptive would they be to that idea? MR. PALUMBO-They might be receptive. What you have to realize, though, is that once it’s in DOT’s right of way, it’s DOT’s tree. MR. VOLLARO-But this area is so deep, naturally, that the sun problem’s going to be a problem without vegetation. Because of it’s proximity. I mean, I don’t see where the vegetation’s going to make a difference. Because it’s already a problem because of the natural terrain. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there some resistance to the idea of the retaining wall? MR. PITTENGER-Not from me. MR. MAC EWAN-Does it make any sense? Is that the way the Board seems to be leaning? MR. RINGER-I think the retaining wall would (lost words) trees up there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and what are you talking about making that retaining wall out of? MR. VOLLARO-I had recommended that stone face. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I like the cobble, maybe reinforced with a little concrete. MR. VOLLARO-Now you’re talking more money. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yours is more expensive. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute here. I don’t think we need to design their project for them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we just need to indicate to them that’s what our wishes are, to have a retaining wall. We’ll give them a length. We’ll give them a height. We’re looking for this run, if they choose to use like the material they use out toward the back of the Mall, like the metal locking blocks, something along those lines, I would fine that acceptable. MR. STROUGH-Mr. Chairman, I think what Cathy’s getting at is what you don’t want is what do you generally see sometimes for retaining walls, and that is those pre-caged rip rap. MR. PITTENGER-The gabian baskets. MR. STROUGH-That’s not particularly pretty. I mean, it does work, but I think that’s what Cathy is getting at is, well, not that, but something else. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if we get to that point, then we can just, as part of the resolution, just say a retaining wall be built at a choice other than that. MR. STROUGH-Or similar to what they’ve used up above. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And it would help continuity, too, if you used the same kind of retaining wall. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a consensus here on that? MR. STROUGH-I mean, I don’t know what that’s called. MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t believe a retaining wall is a deal killer. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. PITTENGER-As I understand the Board, what they’re looking for is a three on one planting bed area that’s 12 feet wide at least, and certainly we have that on much of the area, but we’re very constrained in that certain portion, and then to provide a wall, that’s not a gabian basket, that would then carry the rest of the slope down to the drive. MR. MAC EWAN-Based on what Mr. Palumbo said. MR. HUNSINGER-So the goal of the retaining wall is to maintain the 12 foot planting area. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And the slope. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So if you already have the 12 foot planting area, and you have the proper slope, then you may not need to extend the wall the whole 90 feet. MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a deal here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. What Eric was saying was just that we will have to go spec the material, and if, when we look at it, we think that it should be anything different than what you’re specking, we’ll come back and talk about it, but we’ll take it as a condition that. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just writing words down that says the retaining wall for material other than a gabian basket. So that would leave the design criteria up to you, with that exception. MR. STROUGH-Well, in terms of the Aviation Mall, on their behalf, it’s an entrance to their place, and it’s in their best interest to make it look attractive. So I’m not too worried about that. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. You just don’t want to spend your money. I see you smiling. . MR. MAC EWAN-They’re nervous back there. The guys in the front row are nervous. MR. VOLLARO-This is like a corporate meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Russ? We’ve pretty much covered it, haven’t we. All right. Larry, I’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. RINGER-No. I still don’t understand if Frank has agreed on that loading dock in the (lost words). MR. PALUMBO-Well, thanks for going back to that, because I think, as we were talking about the internal circulation, I didn’t want to confuse that with Item Number Two, and make sure that the consensus is what we’re talking about. I mean, I think that the small modifications that they made will make sure that the trucks flow through there, but the loading dock issue is really one that’s, it’s a discretionary type of thing. I’ve raised it because I think it is important. I do think that that ring road is going to be there, and what I said in Number Two was that this building is being fit into the Mall, and I’ll just leave it so that the applicant can discuss it with you. I assumed that there would need to be some building modifications in order to fit that into the Mall, and so why we didn’t see any type of loading dock alternative arrangement, they’re saying that are strict guidelines that are with the prototypical building. Well, this is not a prototypical building. It is probably for the most part, but they will have to do some things differently to fit that into the Mall. I’m not saying that this is, and the comments that they have made so far about the number of truck deliveries, but that location there, you will have no other choice but to have a truck stop in the ring road and back up, and it will be one of those things of the timing of when the truck gets there, how close a driver might be behind that truck, you know, someone who doesn’t know that they’re coming upon the loading dock area, no matter how many stripes are there, and suddenly is sitting in their, even a large vehicle, in the blind spot of a tractor trailer that’s going to be backing up there. That was my concern and why I raised it, but I think that’s the applicant to make their case to you. It is not a strict engineering. There’s nothing that says, you know, this is a situation that you can’t have, and I think John even mentioned earlier, at the last meeting, that there are places here at the Mall that are somewhat similar. I don’t know that they’re 100% similar, but somewhat similar. So I just wanted to raise that again, so that you had full understanding and dialogue with the applicant about that situation. MR. RINGER-What makes it difficult for us is we’re not engineers. So what is, you know, we need an alternate recommendation from. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. PALUMBO-What I would have liked to have seen, because I know there are some, as we’ve talked about it, there are some difficulties with even doing any type of alternative. If you turn those trucks 90 degrees to the way they are, that brings on some other practical difficulties, because you do have the entrance that’s up in the, it would be the south, or, sorry, the northeast corner right there, and there’s a drive lane that goes by that one, and so turning that loading dock 90 degrees would cause some problems in other parts of the Mall, but I had kind of hoped that we might have seen some alternatives, so rather than just saying that the building doesn’t allow this, that you might have had the chance to see what were the pros and cons of a loading dock arrangement. MR. LAPPER-We’re not saying that the building tenant doesn’t allow it. What we’re saying is that, and we probably didn’t go into this in detail on the record, but we sat down with Russ and looked at all of the potential locations, and we couldn’t come up with a better one than this, but when we learned that we were talking about a couple of deliveries a day, we realized that it shouldn’t be a big issue, but in terms of looking at the building itself, the main entrance to the building from the parking lot is on the west side, and that faces the big field between this building and the Penney’s, which is what we need for parking, including the new Friendly’s field. If we put the entrance the other way, which is not what the tenant wants, if we put the entrance the other way, it would face a much smaller field. If we’re going to keep the entrance where it is, and that is something that the tenant insists on, near the entrance to the Mall where the Bon Ton sign is, the storage area has to be on the opposite side, and, regardless of where it is, the only other location that we could come up with as an alternative would be in that inside corner, and we think that that’s probably worse because it’s near the main entrance to the Food Court, where there’s a lot of pedestrian activity. So we’d rather have these few trucks at the corner there where they’re in the ring road and people are in cars, rather than having people walking, and we can certainly talk about it, but we think this is the best and the safest of the alternatives, but we’ll continue to talk to the Town about it, and if they can come up with something better, we can come back and talk to you, but we think that this is as good as we can come up with, and we think that this will be fine because of the changes that Russ made on the grade, and because it’s in frequently used. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve wrestled with this, and I don’t know how they can do it any other way, even looking at it. MR. PALUMBO-And that’s really, I mean, I had hoped, like as they said, they went through these design exercises, and I think it would have been helpful to you to see those, but like you said, and, Bob, I know that you do wrestle with these things, and you look at them very carefully, and probably have so, and I believe most of you are those type of individuals that you probably have wrestled with this and looked at it and thought about the different things. I had hoped, when we made the comment initially, that they may have shown you some sketches that might have helped you in reviewing that. As I said, the grading is definitely better. They did very much ease my mind by flattening that area out more, so that we don’t have some runaway truck running down through there. I think also at a minimum they do have the designations there along the ring road, but I do think you ought to add something that shows that this truck that’s pulling out of there is going to have the ability, and is going to be designated to stop as he gets closer to the corner of that building. If he were to come out of there, without stopping, or come out without using caution, that’s as bad as the situation, because he’s blind to a lot of what he sees until he gets his cab far enough out there. That’s as bad as the situation of them backing up, because, again, it’s just a blind view type of situation. MR. MAC EWAN-This may be just a thought here, but this same potential for deliveries happens with the Bon Ton store in the back side of the Mall, where you’ve got trucks using that ring road and backing into the loading docks there. Right, or am I wrong on that? MR. RINGER-I don’t think they back into traffic like they would here, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, they’d have to, one way or the other. MR. PITTENGER-I think we could certainly add some striping so that, to caution the truck drivers as they pull out. We could stripe that whole area out there, on the inside of it, so they know, when they’re coming out, they’re coming out into a driving lane. MR. MAC EWAN-As a matter of fact, even the new JC Penney addition has a truck loading dock that’s right by the CVS area where you’ve got to back into traffic. Right? MR. ORLANDO-That’s correct. MR. PALUMBO-And it’s not even a first time here. I mean, it’s not like this is the only place that has. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I just wanted to point that out for the Board, that, you know, this isn’t a unique situation to the Mall. It’s pretty much most all the other stores, in one way or another, have a dilemma when it comes to receiving deliveries. MR. PALUMBO-The reason I guess I focused on this a little bit more was the fact that this is the front ring road, where I think you’d, on average, see more traffic than along the back side, but again, it is not a unique situation. It’s not a one of a kind. It’s seen here. There are places, Crossgates Mall has, along their ring road, some areas where they back in on an angle, almost parallel to the road. So, from an engineering standpoint where you’re saying you’re not an engineer, it’s not really an engineering issue. It’s a matter of, really, sometimes the way that a lay Board such as yourselves would look at this might even explain more of it, because you use facilities like this and you see it. So it’s not a, there’s not a right or wrong, really, to it. MR. RINGER-A Board like ourselves can see it, but come up with solutions is difficult for a Board like us to do. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s what Frank is saying. It would have been nice for us to take a look at what the possible solutions were, to see how they arrived at this, but that might be an academic exercise at this point. MR. PALUMBO-It could be. MR. RINGER-Outside of that, I had no other comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing further either. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Just some clarifications here, and then I’ve got something new. All right. I understand that the intersection, the internal intersection to the western entrance, the radii, the radius is going to be changed from 15 to 30 to accommodate trucks. Now, Mr. Palumbo, you had suggested that 30 is adequate. What do you like to see for trucks, 35? MR. PALUMBO-Thirty-five would have certainly been better. Thirty, that’s where, the way that that road configures, it comes to a ninety, but it quickly goes out of a ninety. That’s why I would have preferred to have seen an actual truck turning template. I know Russ talked about the fire maneuverability versus, you know, the tractor trailer maneuverability. These tenants, these types of tenants are going with the biggest trucks out there, basically, and I had hoped to have seen a truck turning template for one of those vehicles, so that I could assure you that 30 was good enough. Thirty-five would be better. MR. LAPPER-We could do 35. MR. PALUMBO-You can do 35? I’d go 35. MR. PITTENGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right. Okay. That’s good. Make everyone happy there. The only other area that I have a suggestion. Now, the area that I’m going to be talking about is the western parking area, just west of the west entrance, okay, it’s proposed, and I see there’s no plantings on the north side of that. In other words, there’s no plantings proposed between the park area and Aviation Road. What I’m suggesting is, so that we continue the theme that’s going along that area, the theme that’s along that area is generally going to be Little Leaf Lindens, and I’m on Six, and the theme that you’ve got going along there are those Little Leaf Lindens, and I’m wondering, except with the break, and I’m going to assume that that break is because you want to advertise the store, and that is an opportunity to be able to see that store, between the two Little Leaf Lindens, closest to the intersection, then there’s a break, and then there’s three. MR. PITTENGER-There’s a couple of very large existing trees right there. MR. STROUGH-Well, I didn’t know if they were going to be removed because they were kind of. MR. PITTENGER-No, they’re to stay. They will stay. MR. STROUGH-All right. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. PITTENGER-But we could certainly continue the Lindens up around this parking area. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I thought, and I don’t think you have to do anything right now, because the parking area is bermed and pretty hidden, but should you decide to develop that parking lot, then I would like to see the landscaping kick in. In other words, you wouldn’t have to do the landscaping for your expansion project. You would only do the landscaping, should you go and develop that parking area, because you needed it. Is that reasonable? MR. PITTENGER-I think so. MR. LAPPER-It would be better to probably put it on the plan now to show it. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, we’ll modified the plan to show that plantings. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, here’s what I ended up with. I ended up, I noticed the space generally with trees are 25 feet apart. They’re running about five feet off of the property right of way, and so I continued that five feet off of the property right of way, and the 25 feet apart, and I got seven trees that would go along that edge, and did that seem reasonable, seven Little Leaf Lindens, would be about 25 feet apart. MR. VOLLARO-John, where are you? So that we know where you are. MR. STROUGH-In the proposed parking area, up here, you see how the landscaping is not? MR. VOLLARO-That’s to the west of Friendly’s? MR. STROUGH-Right, to the west of, the west entrance. You see the proposed expansion parking area? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, it doesn’t have any landscaping in that area. So I’m just proposing that they plant seven Little Leaf Lindens, pretty much like they’ve done down below, about 25 feet apart and about five feet off the property right of way line, and that’ll be about seven trees, which would be done, should you do the build out, should it happen. Should it not happen, then you don’t do it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is not for this project? MR. STROUGH-Well, see, this is a proposed expansion parking area. Should they decide that they need it, this would be their call, all right, right, and that’ll be depending on how much business you get, and if you need the parking area, they have the right to go and expand the parking area, and that’s all fine. I just suggested that they continue the Little Leaf Lindens. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to determine whether we’ve got to write this into this resolution or not. That’s what’s on my mind. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure you do. No, you can put it into it. MR. RINGER-If they expand the parking, they’d have to come for site plan? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it would be a modification. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. You had them do the grading for that reserved area. That reserved area has been designed as if it would be built. MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and it’s part of this application. MR. PALUMBO-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So, even though they aren’t going to utilize it right away, should they come in down the road to make good on it, then that’s when that would kick in, but it’s a good idea to pen it in now. MR. STROUGH-Now the only other, one other thing. The pedestrian access, which has been widened five feet now, now it’s a total of ten feet. I mentioned, somebody mentioned grassy strip. I still don’t have an idea in my head what the design of this pedestrian access is going to look like, and I’d like to nail that down. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. MAC EWAN-My preference, my personal preference, is I’d rather just see a 10 foot wide striped area, no grassy strip. MR. STROUGH-Well, whatever it be, it should be defined, and I don’t think it’s been defined quite. MR. LAPPER-It’s raised, Craig, it’s up on the curb. It’s curbed. So it’s not just striped. MR. PITTENGER-Well, yes, there’s a couple, I mean, obviously, where it comes across (lost word) it’s a sidewalk, and it runs between a parking area and the ring road. It’s a sidewalk up on a curb. Then there’d be a transition sloped down, a handicapped ramp, if you will, and then a crossing, then up, then we have it designed so it’s up on a median, then down for a crossing then up on a median and then down for the crossing and then back up on the sidewalk. Now, if, what we want to do with that is to modify that in some way. Once we get that width, if you want to have that be a painted stripe instead of having to go up and down the islands and try to restrict the crossings, we can certainly deal with that. MR. MAC EWAN-From a handicapped access position, wouldn’t it be easier just to have one level, a flat plane for wheelchair accessibility and such, instead of going up and over a curb? MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Chairman, are the handicap people going to be using this? I mean, there are handicap spots adjacent to the stores. I don’t see, myself, if I were a handicap person, parking over at Friendly Ice Cream. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you, but, you know, you’ve got to think of the long term thing here. I mean, if they’re talking about going up and over curbs, wouldn’t it just make sense to leave it flat and just stripe it? Instead of going over curbs? MR. STROUGH-You mean and just identify it as a? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, as a 10 foot wide walkway. MR. PITTENGER-I would almost suggest, then, that what do is we take this whole arrangement here, move it slightly back 60 feet, and make it cross here. It’s a little closer to the corner, but then we can stripe this and then widen out the space in between this parking bay. They’ll get at least some protection. There’ll be cars there, and come right down through there and hit the corner, rather than go, because these have entrances here. I mean, that’s an idea, just to paint that right up there, then you’d just have the crossing at the curb, which you need for the ring road, or we can even break that curb, really. If it’s striped, then they can just hit it with the plow in the winter and it’s open all the time, instead of having somebody come in there and shovel it. So we can look at an alternative route that keeps it basically at one level, to the degree that we can. MR. MAC EWAN-And should someone who is wheelchair bound utilize that access, it would seem to me it would be easier just to stay on a flat plane, than going up and over curbs and stuff. MR. PITTENGER-Well, we all know, if you haven’t ridden a bike, if you’ve got a kid in a stroller, or you’re pushing something, it makes it a lot easier than going up and down, but by trying to slide this over and having it on the inside of this parking bay that you do get the protection because there’s nothing, I mean, I even ride a motorcycle. It’s awful to be out there on the road with a left hand blinker and hoping somebody doesn’t come up and run into you, and absent the curbs here, that would give you some security, once you pass this drive, and you’d have a crossing here, and it would just be striped off, and you could even, you know, have your normal striped crossings that they would have for the store. MR. MAC EWAN-How does everybody else feel about that? MR. STROUGH-I’m still not clear about where we’re going to locate it. Where it’s currently located, as it comes off of the Friendly parking area, is near an intersection, which is generally where you want to have a crosswalk, because the cars can be cautioned at those intersections. Now, it only makes sense, then, to run it the way that you’ve run it to the store corner as proposed. MR. PITTENGER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I mean, to move it back seems to take it away from that intersection, where cars are normally alarmed to be cautioned. MR. LAPPER-But if you want it to be flat, you need to move it away from the curb probably. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. STROUGH-I understand that. That’s what I wanted to point out to Craig, that if you wanted to take out the curbs, you can’t really take out the curbs because it defines the road that’s going to the ring road. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why Russ suggested moving it to the next parking space over. MR. PALUMBO-Russ, what if you just put it inside the curb line, where you have that curb. You’re going to move everything over five feet anyway, and actually where you come across the road, there’s actually that little jog to the sidewalk that you have presently. What if that just came straight down the eastern side of that, that what you have now as a five foot curbed? MR. LAPPER-So it would be five foot inside. MR. PITTENGER-It would be inside the curb and the cars. MR. PALUMBO-Did everyone follow me on that? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. PALUMBO-Okay. Presently what they have. MR. STROUGH-I think that’ll work. MRS. LA BOMBARD-He’s bringing it more toward the center. MR. STROUGH-No, you can’t. MR. ROUND-The way John has it drawn. MR. STROUGH-I’ll give this to Laura. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, let me see that again. MR. HUNSINGER-Define this for us, John. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, define that exactly for us. MR. STROUGH-Well, what they’re going to do is use the curb. It’s going to be a regular curb that’s adjacent to that road that accesses that ring road, and from that curb, 10 foot to the east will be a defined pedestrian walkway. MR. HUNSINGER-It’ll be curbed. MR. STROUGH-Well, the curb will just be a curb. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and this will be defined by striping. MR. STROUGH-And then 10 feet from that curb will be the defined pedestrian access to the store, similar to the way I’ve drawn it here on the plan. See, this’ll just be a curb, and that’ll be extended to 10 feet, and the 10 foot pedestrian access will be adjacent to the curb. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where are you coming from here? MR. STROUGH-The pedestrian access is here. There’s no pedestrian access being proposed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know, but you’re the one saying about the person coming from Friendly’s in a wheelchair. MR. STROUGH-From here. From this Friendly’s parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-From this parking lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And what I’m saying is they were suggesting moving it down here, which moves it away from the intersection. That bothered me. Because here you can caution cars, because it is an intersection, just to extend it right down to the store, and they’re going to make it 10 feet, just make a curb. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. VOLLARO-That puts that entrance at the westerly corner of that building, the northwesterly corner of that building. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, that sounds right. MR. STROUGH-What bothers me is we’re going to lose one tree. Okay. We’re going to lose one tree in this. Right? MR. PITTENGER-No. Actually, I think, we lost some trees, we actually had trees in here at one point. Then we put the sidewalk on it, but what we’ll do is we’ll put the trees back in here, and have that walkway on the inside of the curb. MR. STROUGH-That’s good. Yes. The wording, have you got a handle on this, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The northwest corner of the building is what I put it on, yes. What’s the width of that, roughly, by scale? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ten feet. MR. STROUGH-Ten feet from the curb. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, John? MR. STROUGH-That’s it. That was the last item I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t really have anything new. I know we spent a lot of time talking about the loading dock and the truck traffic and vehicular traffic and such, and at first I was having a difficult time envisioning such a dramatic increase in traffic on the ring road, and then of course I remembered that currently you can go on either side of the parking lot. So, you know, all the traffic that would go up against the Mall, would now have to go on the outside, but, you know, I really think that the design is really the best that you could obtain, given the site restrictions, and also remembering that it might only take two or three minutes that traffic would be upset while a truck is backing out, or backing into the space, and, you know, you were talking about that happening once or twice a day. I understand the concerns for safety, but I think the upset of the traffic flow is very minimal. I didn’t have anything new to add, other than just to comment on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have a question. If that most western parking lot has to be opened up, they don’t have to come back to us for any review on that, do they? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think so, no. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s drawn. MR. ROUND-I think if it complies with the plans that you have in hand, if they need to construct it, I think they’d be allowed to. So, that’s why it’s important to include John’s suggestion for landscaping. I think lighting has been proposed on that. So as long as it’s constructed according to the plan. MR. PITTENGER-And stormwater is done, too. MR. ROUND-Stormwater has been evaluated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So just go ahead with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because that’s probably what’s going to happen. MR. MAC EWAN-And anything other than that, they’d have to come back and ask for a modification. Okay. Anything else you guys wanted to add? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s a really good plan, and I really appreciate all the effort and how receptive you’ve been to the comments of my fellow Board members and Staff and Frank, and I think it’s really great to work like that. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-How about we take a five minute recess, and I elected a committee of Chris, Cathy, and Robert to pen a resolution. Okay. We’ll reconvene. We have the resolution ready to go here. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2001 FEIS PYRAMID CO./AVIATION MALL, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 21-2001, Pyramid Co. for construction of a +/- 125,000 SF GLA department store addition with associated site work. All uses in ESC zones require Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: PZ 1-98, SP 14-98. Tax Map Nos. 98-1-1, 98-1-2.1, 2.2, 5.1, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 5.27, 5.3, 98-5-4.1 and; WHEREAS, the application was received 5/31/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/4/01: September 9/4 L. Moore, C. Round from R. Pittenger, LA Group August 8/31 C. Round from F. Palumbo 8/30 PB from L. Moore – transmittal – revised SEQR Findings Stmt., amended Final EIS, revised plans (8/27) 8/21 PB resolution to table to 9/4 8/21 Staff Notes 8/21 C. Round from R. Pittenger – response to 8/17 Sear Brown draft comments 8/17 C. Round from F. Palumbo – review of 6/27 material 8/16 J. Lapper from C. Round – fax to review Findings Stmt. 8/15 F. Palumbo from L. Moore – fax of staff comments 8/15 Note to File from L. Moore re: landscape calculations 8/7 Post Star article 8/3 J. Lapper from Planning Office – 8/2 letter from NYSDOT 8/2 J. Collins Eng. from W. Logan – NYS DOT July 7/13 Received Date – C. Round from F. Palumbo 7/13 Fax to J. Lapper from C. Round of 7/13 letter from F. Palumbo 7/12 From Internet – Post Star article 7/9 M. Schachner and C. Round from M. Sweeney – proposed resolution for TB acceptance of FEIS as complete 7/2 C. Round from R. Pittenger – Transmittal letter and Eng. Report for Stormwater Management dated 6/27/01 June 6/29 L. Gorman (Legal Assistant to M. Sweeney) to M. Sweeney c/o J. Lapper Site Plan Application 6/27 C. MacEwan & PB members from R. Pittenger, LA Group transmitting revised site plan and a brief discussion of the main site plan issues. 6/20 J. Lapper from C. Round – Comments on DEIS 6/19 Staff Notes 6/19 Fax to J. Lapper from Staff of Sear Brown comments as referenced in 6/20 letter from C. Round 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) 6/19 C. Round from F. Palumbo – initial review of material furnished by applicant and comments 6/19 Planning Board resolution - tabled 6/15 Meeting Notes (draft) 6/14 Planning Board from D. Petta, VP, Fitzgerald Bros. 6/14 C. Round from F. Palumbo – draft comments 6/14 Planning Board minutes (draft) PZ 1-98 – 6/23/98 6/13 Warren Co. Planning Board resolution – Withdrawn 6/13 C. Round from K. Guild 6/13 Planning Staff from M. Ryba – SP 21-2001 and SEQRA Review of Addendum to DEIS 6/12 C. MacEwan & PB from J. Lapper – site development sheet 6/12 Notice of Public Hearing 6/11 Town Board from B. Monahan 6/9 Meeting Notice 6/8 FOIL request – B. Monahan May 5/30 C. MacEwan & PB from R. Orlando 5/23 C. Round, J. Lapper & J. Collins from M. Sweeney 5/21 TB minutes (draft) 5/17 C. Round from K. Chadwick – copies of transmittal letters for filing the Addendum, Notice of Completion and Lead Agency resolution accepting the addendum as complete 5/16 C. Round from M. Sweeney – copies of transmittal letters 5/16 PB from C. Round 5/16 D. Dougher from C. Round – addendum complete letter 5/14 C. Round from J. Lapper – proposed SEQR notice 5/15 TB resolution 212.2001 5/7 TB resolution 195.2001 5/3 Word Perfect document compare summary Undated NYS DEC – Gen. Recommendation for properties supporting Karner Blue butterflies Undated GIS maps Application Materials 5/3 C. Round from J. Lapper – letter 5/3/01 – M. Kennedy from J. Collins 5/3/01 – D. Brower from R. Orlando 5/10/01 – D. Brower from R. Orlando May 2001 – Comparative Assessment of Environmental Impacts April 2001 – Appendix A to above document May 2001 – Addendum to the DEIS May 2001 – Volume B, Appendices to Addendum to DEIS Maps S-1 thru S-8 WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 6/19/01 and 8/21/01 concerning the above project; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved per the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The width of the proposed walkway be extended five (5) feet from the northwest corner of the new addition to make a total of 10 feet as shown on Site Plan S-6 and that current 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 9/4/01) vegetation be moved slightly to the east and the parking space also will be shown on site Plan S-6, accordingly, to accommodate the walkway, 2. A retaining wall will be constructed to maintain the 12 foot planting area. It will be built along the south side of the access area in the general area where rip rap is shown – see Site Plan S-5. And retaining wall cannot be made of the Gabian basket type, and the retaining wall should be approximately five feet high, and the vegetation plan will stay similar to that which has been proposed, 3. Additional striping will be done on the inside of the loading dock area. The purpose of it is to caution the truck drivers and make it more easily accessible for them, 4. At the intersection of the connector road and the west entrance, the truck turning radius be extended to 35 feet, 5. In case of possible future development of the most western parking area, 7 Little Leaf Lindens will be planted five feet off the right of way line, and they will be planted twenty- five feet apart and be of a diameter of three inch caliper, and 6. Sear Brown will be allowed a final review of site plans prior to the Zoning Administrator’s final approval. Duly adopted this 21 day of August, 2001 by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. ORLANDO-Thank you. MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Okay. One other issue that’s on our agenda is a tentative discussion item for this month. The ZBA has asked us to discuss the Takundewide development. In lieu of our heavy schedule this month, I’m going to ask Chris to put together a workshop for us, the first week of October, so we can sit down and discuss this. He’s going to put together some draft outline of some of the issues concerning it. Given the fact of what our schedule appears to be for the month of September, it’s just going to be way too late in the evening to discuss anything like that. There’s 16 items, eight in each meeting. MR. RINGER-Eight in each meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Some of them will go quickly. Some of them will go quickly. Some of them will not, and they’re spread around so that they won’t be that terrible. Honest. You’re looking at our meeting dates, Tuesday the 18, and you’re looking at the second meeting the 25, site visits I’m thth guessing are going to be the Saturday before, so the 18, back that up four days, the 15 site visits. I thth will e-mail everybody. Okay. I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 24