Loading...
2003-09-18 SP (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 SEQRA TYPE I WAL-MART STORES PROPERTY OWNER: WAL-MART STORES, INC. & NAT. REALTY AGENT: NEAL MADDEN, ESQ. ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING WAL-MART STORE BY CONSTRUCTING A 95,217 SQ. FT. BUILDING ADDITION FOR A TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 216,080. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32-92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-93, SB 3-93, SP 31-93, AV 38-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36, 37 LOT SIZE: 11.29 AC., 6.46 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 PETER HENTSCHKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HENTSCHKE-I’d like to introduce everybody from the design team, if that’s okay with the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HENTSCHKE-Next to me is Bill Lothian, who’s the Traffic Engineer with Langan Environmental and Engineering Services. We’ve got Gerard Fitamant, over here, and John Speer sitting behind him, both engineers from Langan, and we also have BJ Phillips and David Hauser who are with the architecture firm of Perry Butcher who, their role, their jurisdiction in this project, if you will, was the design of the building. So, we’ve got a bunch of people that want to give brief summaries of the revised plans, the portions that they’re responsible for. There’s been some good changes, I think, to a lot of different aspects of the project, and just so that the Board probably has a better idea than the public, but just so that everybody understands what the suggested revisions are, and if it’s okay with you, I’d like to pass it over to Bill Lothian to talk. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we go too much farther, this is one of those nights where I don’t really relish my position up here as Chairman of the Planning Board. I know that when we tabled this application back in July, we gave you a very long list of things that we were looking for to be provided as a continuation of this review of this application. Although you did respond and submit a lot of things that we were looking for, a lot of the things that we were looking for we didn’t get either, and I’ve highlighted some of the things that I know that the Board has not received, and we feel it’s important to the review of this application. I just want to run down with them real quick, because what I really don’t want to do tonight is get bogged down into a lot of detail, a lot of talking and discussions, because I feel we’re at a point where until we get this information that we sought to get from July, we’re not really prepared to want to move too much forward in discussions with this application. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. HENTSCHKE-Okay. That’s fair enough. We’d just like to know exactly what, you know, what’s still missing from your seat. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let me quickly run down the list. Let’s deal with parking first. We asked that that seasonal display area be cordoned off with landscaping, the elimination of those 11 parking spaces. We asked that the display area be curbed off from parking and landscaped, as you recall. Relative to parking, and jump in here anytime you want, George, we talked about, I guess it would be internalization of truck traffic, truck delivery. You still show truck access on the south side circulating around the building, and where we were talking about wanting all truck traffic to come in to that north end of the entrance. MR. HILTON-I guess that’s something, in our notes, we’ve touched on, that needs some clarification. The applicant has stated in writing that they are going to channel all truck traffic to the entrance on Route 9, and internalize it and not use the southern and western portions. However, plans submitted are a little bit confusing because they show trucks on the south end, and I guess our point was, you know, some clarification, and how does that impact the noise and the figures. MR. HENTSCHKE-Can we keep going with your list? MR. MAC EWAN-Along the lines of landscaping and screening, we were looking for the design corridor standards to be met for along Route 9. Obviously the seasonal display area to be buffered with landscaping. We wanted more buffering for noise and landscaping in the parking islands, and also an earthen berm along Weeks Road that was to be landscaped. We wanted enhanced landscaping and buffering along the residential areas, a fence for noise and/or berming with fencing. That was to be along both the residential development to the south and also to the apartment complex to the back portion of the site. The lighting, we had asked you to supply three different lighting plans, one plan with 40 foot lights, one plan with 30 foot lights, and one plan with 20 foot lights, and I think what we received was a mixed bag of lighting throughout the parcel, and that’s not what we were looking for. I think the Board’s position still is to have this application meet the lighting requirements that are in our Town Code. I don’t know that there’s going to be a lot of flexibility from Board members to want to go with 40 foot or 30 foot lights when that lighting code will certainly do the job, and last but not least, I think the Board echoed its sentiment that we were looking a building design like the main store, and although you did redesign the façade and the colors and the architecture. It’s still, I don’t think, what we’re looking for. Anybody can jump in if I’ve missed something. MR. STROUGH- Well, I’ve got a lot to say, but it’s basically along the lines of traffic. I just could go in a whole lot more detail, and I don’t know how you want to handle this, Mr. Chairman, if you want to handle one item at a time. You just went through it. I think you did a very good job in expressing to the applicant that, you know, I’m speaking for myself, that the application, I guess we’re having trouble communicating, because I thought at first that, you know, we were pretty much on the same track as to where we were going to go, and I think this is our third time, and if we keep going at this pace, it could be a fourth time, it could be a fifth time, it could be a sixth time. Eventually we’ll get there, sooner or later, but I just thought that we could get there sooner rather than later. So I was kind of disappointed, but I’ll save the details for later if it’s necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that’s the other thing, too, touching on traffic, you are in receipt of the letter from New York State. I think that the information that you provided for their review was, I guess the best way to put it, inconclusive. MR. HENTSCHKE-We did provide them additional information after that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We haven’t seen anything, any correspondence from the State since that, what was it, September 3 letter. Anything from this end? rd 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I would sort of echo John’s comments. You gave the broad brush review, and there’s more detail. MR. HENTSCHKE-Okay. Is it okay if we give our, just turn it over to the traffic engineer? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just curious as to how you respond to not providing the information we were looking for? MR. HENTSCHKE-We tried to provide as much as we could. Like you said, there was a long list. We tried to hit the things that were most important to you, and we tried to work within our means, you know, we’ve got so much resources to deal with to meet the project, and we’re trying to adjust things to respond to your comments, internalization of truck traffic, doing a recirculation pattern was the one thing we tried to focus on. It necessarily impacted a number of the other areas, such as the buffering, things like that. I mean, it’s all like a give and take and we were trying to meet some of the things, but it threw other things out of whack a little bit, but I’m really glad you’re giving us like this definite list of things that you’re looking for, because, I mean, we heard a lot of the. MR. MAC EWAN-This is the same list that we gave you back in July. MR. HENTSCHKE-Well, it’s a lot shorter, I think. There was, I mean. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, some of the stuff, yes, you have responded to, but, you know, everything that was on that list was very important to us. I mean, it wasn’t one item that was more important than another, or subjective, I mean, we thought that everything we were looking for was inclusive in that list. MR. HENTSCHKE-And we’re trying to meet those things as best we can. So I guess maybe what would be most productive is to try to address where we’ve changed things, and if there’s still problems with those, that might be something that you can help us with. I mean, if we’ve tried to adjust it to a respond to comments and we didn’t get it quite right, we’d, you know, love to hear how else it would be better, I mean, how we missed it, how we missed the direction or what have you. So, with that, if I could, I’d like to turn it over to Bill Lothian to talk about the traffic, and as Bill said, just to preface, he’s been in correspondence with Mark Kennedy from the DOT and has been up here since that previous letter, or the latest letter you got from DOT. So I just want to let Bill talk a little bit about the traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, but what I don’t want to get is bogged down in a lot of discussions of traffic, only because we haven’t seen anything come from DOT. We haven’t seen any new information come from you as well. MR. HENTSCHKE-We did send something to the Town. We did send a copy of our revised report that we did send to the DOT, we also copied the Town on it. MR. MAC EWAN-When was that DOT? MR. HENTSCHKE-It was dated September 15. So it wasn’t that long ago. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We wouldn’t have had it for tonight’s meeting. BILL LOTHIAN MR. LOTHIAN-Just to touch on the one item that you did mention, the truck access on the south side, from the traffic standpoint, I think we attempted to address everything that, the questions that you had. The site plan that you see on this, the site plan that’s up has the truck circulation pattern. I believe this is what you’re commenting on, that the plan that’s submitted still shows the ability to have truck circulation around the south side. This is for that, the Garden Center requires certain truck traffic to drop off at this location. It’s very infrequent, but 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) it does show. This is the Site Plan 35-01, and it shows the truck circulation plan. The reason why we left the circulation around the southerly side is for that one truck that would go to the Garden Center, and also the ability, we were showing the ability of that large truck, the emergency services, fire can make the circulation pattern around the building. We wanted to show that it still can be done. What we did with the truck circulation is all the trucks, the remainder of the trucks are going to come in the signalized driveway, the northerly driveway, enter through the site, islands and curbs have been set back to allow the trucks to make those movements. The truck will come straight ahead, come in to this area, it’ll then, the main general merchandise will then back up this short stretch into the existing docks. The newer docks on the supermarket side will enter the same way or enter the truck area the same way, and the exiting traffic will all come down through the site, come down through the location, same way they came around the area and come back out. Staying away from the exterior of the majority of the area around the residential. So the reason why we did show the ability to do that is for that one Garden Center truck that would still want to go in that direction, rather than circulate around the other way. He still has to get over to the Garden Center area, but again, it’s an infrequent facility. Today, all the trucks exit down Weeks Road, and there’s difficulty making that turn. We attempted to take all the truck traffic, keep it internal, stay away from Weeks Road altogether. We also got rid of the one access point on Weeks Road that was in conflict with those 11 parking spaces. We closed two access points and shifted the one further down to the east, and that also provides not only the ability to provide access for the trucks on-site, but it also provides a bus circulation pattern where the bus stop at this point was located on Weeks Road. We’re allowing the bus to come around through the site and pick up at the relocated bus stop. That’s two of the things, that was just to respond to the one item that you had mentioned. Some general items, again, we’d like to keep this brief. Since the last meeting, the site plan has been modified to have all the truck ingress and egress from Route 9, thereby eliminating any of the dependency on Weeks Road. The truck circulation also is minimizing the impact on any of the residential areas. Since the last meeting, we heard the Board. We took existing traffic counts at the Wilton Wal-Mart, at the Super Center there. The counts that we took, they verified the opinions and confirmed the opinions that we submitted in our early April 3 report. The rd counts were well within what we would have expected from the Super Center store. Even though it’s not exactly the same because there’s a Lowe’s next door, and there’s some cross traffic, we thought the counts would have actually been higher because of the operation like almost a shopping center, but they were well within the volumes that we have projected in our study. The potential parking lot interconnection points was one of the things that came up at the last meeting, talking about a possible connection to both Ray Supply and also to the restaurant to the north. We show those restaurant connections to the north, and we also showed a possible location to Ray Supply. It’s on the site plan. It shows it at this location, the location of possible future connection by others. The reason why we put it at this location, it’s away from the main entry drive where we’re actually eliminating some crisscrossing connections at this point in our proposed plan, to clear up this area here. We wouldn’t want any connection at this location, but this could be a safe location. At that point it enters the parking facility, and thereby anyone that exited from Ray Supply that wanted to make a left hand turn out of the site that was uncomfortable at the existing driveway, they could come through the site and exit at the traffic signal. So we’re providing that ability on the site plan for both adjacent commercial developments. We did submit the supplementary traffic assessment dated August 13, 2003. That went to both the Board and to the DOT. It was in response to some of the Board’s comments and also to that DOT letter of August 5. New York State DOT sent a th letter September 3, 2003. They requested some additional information on gaps in queuing related to that northern Ray Supply access point. We prepared a study, and that study is dated September 15. We took counts and took videos over a four hour period on a typical week day, th catching the midday hours and also the PM commuter peak hours. We did a queuing and a gap analysis at that location, which is the southerly Wal-Mart drive and also the northerly access drive into Ray Supply. That letter report, after I submitted it to Mark Kennedy, I did give him a call at the DOT. I was trying to get a response out of him prior to this meeting. He said there was a lot of things in the queue ahead of us and he wasn’t able to provide a response before tonight’s meeting, but he did say he would be getting to that. That response to queuing and the gap analysis that we put together again, confirmed all of the information that we had put in the earlier report. Back in our supplementary traffic assessment dated August 13, we identified th 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) that there was no problem getting a left turn movement out of the Ray Supply during the counts and during the observations that we had done, but we didn’t do an actual peak hour count at that location at that time. Subsequent to that, we did go out, over this four hour period. We not only counted the traffic entering and exiting Ray Supply, we counted the gaps that were two way gaps, that’s any time that there was no traffic heading northbound on Route 9. No traffic heading southbound on Rout e 9, nobody turning left into Wal-Mart, and nobody turning right out of Wal-Mart. There’s certain periods of time. That data is submitted in this September 15 report, and what it shows is there is numerous gaps, in excess of seven and a th half seconds when you’re looking at traffic standpoint. To safely make a left hand turn out of an unsignalized location, you’d want a gap, a two way gap of at least seven and a half seconds for a person to sit at the driveway, look both ways, safely make an exit and turn left. MR. RINGER-What was the date of that last? MR. LOTHIAN-That was last Thursday. MR. RINGER-September 11? th MR. LOTHIAN-September 11. th MR. RINGER-Thursday was the day. MR. LOTHIAN-It was a Thursday, and the number of gaps in an hour’s period, there were gaps, and in order to see what actually goes on at this location, all you have to do is sit there for five minutes. You can’t just go at one location and watch one change at a signal cycle at the northerly the driveway. Sit there five minutes. You’ll see how many actual gaps are created in traffic to allow these left turn movements to occur, because of the location of the signal at the Wal-Mart drive and the location of the signal at the Home Depot drive. They’re timed such that they will only allow traffic to leave those two signal locations at a certain timing period that creates long gaps at the location of the Ray Supply driveway and also at the Wal-Mart driveway. So we counted, and we documented in this report, the queue lanes that occurred, and it was very infrequently that any more than two cars queued at location. Once in a four hour period that we were counting did nine cars queue up to make a left turn into Wal-Mart, and that’s because a car decided to slow down on the entry drive. There was a condition and reason why, but for the rest of the four hours, there was only 10 times that there was, you know, more than three cars that would have entered in the left hand turn and queued up out in the roadway. MR. SANFORD-But that was on Thursday in September. Do you think there would be material changes to your study if it was on a Saturday in July? MR. LOTHIAN-We did traffic counts on August 1, which was a week day in August, and that st was more traffic and we documented in this report. There’s a little over 100 cars more in the north and south bound directions on Route 9, and only about 60 or so, or a little more than 60 cars additional going in or out of Wal-Mart. That’s like one car a minute on average, entering Wal-Mart or exiting Wal-Mart. The volumes that we had done in the earlier assessment, we did an intersection analysis, using the higher volumes that we had observed during the summer period, but these volumes that we counted, like last Thursday, that would be more typical of what’s going on almost maybe 10 months out of the year, as opposed to the summer months where you’re getting some additional, the recreational traffic, but we did the analysis in August. We took the volumes with the recreational traffic. So our assessment includes those higher volumes. MR. SANFORD-Well, one thing it probably doesn’t factor in is right now we’re looking at a smaller Wal-Mart, not a super Wal-Mart, and so I would assume the traffic going in to Wal- Mart and utilizing the store would be much greater once the renovations are complete. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. LOTHIAN-We did the projections using the projected volumes for the full super Wal-Mart. So we took a projection for the entering traffic, not only the existing traffic, we extended it up to include that traffic which would occupy the fully occupied store. So that’s what we analyzed, but what was not necessarily surprising, because it’s what we’ve seen in all the other times that we’ve been observing it, is the number of gaps that are very long gaps that would allow the traffic to exit Ray Supply, very safely, and just to give you an idea how many cars in an hour’s period are exiting Ray Supply, the peak hour, throughout this four hour count, the peak hour count exiting Ray Supply making a left hand turn was six cars in an hour’s period. So that’s one car every ten minutes wanted to make a left hand turn, and go north on Route 9. During the same one hour period, six cars made a right hand turn out of that access point. Now, Ray’s has two driveways, both would allow all movements. So if there was ever a problem making a right hand turn out of the northerly drive, they could go down to the southerly drive very easily. MR. MAC EWAN-This is all in this report? MR. LOTHIAN-That’s in this report, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Because we’re starting to get bogged down in a lot of details that we don’t have the information in front of us. MR. LOTHIAN-The data is here. The data has been submitted to the Board. You have at least one copy. So that your experts will go through that. MR. RINGER-Was there any particular reason you didn’t use Saturday, which would be a normal peak day for shoppers? MR. LOTHIAN-Actually, the PM peak hour actually had more traffic on the road than some Saturdays because the peak commuter hours sometimes has more traffic on it. MR. RINGER-Not turning in to Wal-Mart, though. I mean, I agree that you’re going to get more traffic on Route 9 perhaps on Friday because you’ve got business travelers, but you’ve got more shoppers on a Saturday than you would on a Thursday. So you’d perhaps have more cars turning in to a Wal-mart on a Saturday in peak hour, is the only point I’m trying to make. It just seemed like Saturday might have been a better choice or maybe a week day and a Saturday might have been a better choice. MR. LOTHIAN-But again, what we supported in the document was the analysis that we showed that the volumes from the proposed Wal-Mart are going to be less than what was generated by the fully occupied Ames and the diner and just the straight Wal-Mart store. The volumes, based on statistics, are going to be less with the Wal-Mart super center than was going to be there with the fully occupied. If somebody went in and occupied the Ames store today, there’d be probably more traffic than would be there when the Wal-Mart expands. MR. STROUGH-Well, and on that point, I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, if you want to like discuss this as we come across it point by point, or just let them. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe topic by topic. I just don’t want to get bogged down in a lot of things here tonight because we’re still missing a lot of information we sought. MR. LOTHIAN-That was the end of my summary. MR. STROUGH-Well, without getting bogged down in details, I did look at your truck turning exhibit, 35.01 and 35.02, and then I looked at the signage, and although I like the plan that you’ve presented, because I think the way you’ve presented it solves a lot of the problems, keeping the trucking up north, and you’re going to have the occasional delivery to the automotive center and the landscape center, I know, but the signage that has trucks and arrows on the signage which is, whatever it is, doesn’t distinguish which trucks. It says trucks this 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) way, and it has trucks this way on your southerly entrance and it has it on the northerly entrance, and it has trucks this way directing trucks that way as well as this way. It doesn’t distinguish trucks making automotive and landscape deliveries only this way, all other trucks go this way. MR. LOTHIAN-I think that’s a detail that can be addressed very easily. MR. STROUGH-But you see what I mean? MR. LOTHIAN-Understood. MR. RINGER-The truck making the grocery deliveries is going to have to come in, will he have to come out on Weeks Road before he can back in? There’s enough room for him to get straightened out and back in to your door? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-It looked kind of tight. MR. LOTHIAN-It’s close, but he can do it all on site. MR. STROUGH-And that’s another question. I don’t know the answer to this. It’s just a technical question that you would know the answer to. I noticed that on the northerly entrance, and I’m on 35.01, that as the truck enters the property and then makes its first right hand turn, that it gets awful close to that curbing, the island, now, is that significant? Should that island maybe be moved back? Do you have that in front of you so you know what I’m talking about? MR. LOTHIAN-I know what you’re talking about. It’s designed tightly, but one of the things that, these are the design radiuses you use out of the computer, the actual truck movements. The trucks can make tighter turns than what’s shown on the design. MR. STROUGH-So those have a margin of error? MR. LOTHIAN-There is a margin of error. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. Okay. There’s a couple of spots where it gets close, and I figured there was probably a margin of error, but I just wanted to make sure. MR. LOTHIAN-There is. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So that’s it for me on trucking. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to traffic? MR. STROUGH-Yes. I’ve got another question on traffic. Our store here, our super Wal-Mart, and according to your traffic study, is going to be a 169 less trips at full build out, as it is now, if the Ames was going and the restaurant was going, and 310 trips less, on a peak hour Saturday. So why do we have more parking? If we’ve got less traffic, why we do have more parking? We’ve got less traffic, you think we’d have less parking. MR. LOTHIAN-They tend to stay there a little bit longer sometimes when they have the opportunity to shop not only at the Wal-Mart, but then they go and do their. MR. STROUGH-I’m going to come back to that on the landscaping issue, but while we’re on the traffic, that is an issue. MR. LOTHIAN-Understood. I hear you that you would prefer less parking, but that’s one of the things that Wal-Mart. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll work it out. MR. LOTHIAN-That’ll be worked out. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HENTSCHKE-Can we switch to another? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Why don’t we jump right in to landscaping and screening. MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. The comment by the Board is that, by your Staff, is that additional evergreen screening should be included as part of the landscape plan in the southern and western portions of the site. What we had done is we’ve revised the landscaping, both along Route 9. We showed additional landscaping along the southern side and the northern side, and we’ve also added a few diamonds, landscape diamonds, in the interior parking. In hearing the feedback from your Staff, I have an exhibit here that hopefully addresses those issues to the Board’s satisfaction, and that is that we’ve added, you can see here there’s only a few diamonds, and what we’ve done, here again, in an attempt to accommodate the Board’s request for additional trees, we’ve accommodated that by putting in these planters in the parking field, and now we meet the township ordinance with respect to trees per parking space. We still are deficient. There’s a 10 percent requirement for landscape in the parking field. We are somewhat deficient in that respect. However, there again, Wal-Mart has indicated to us that they want at least the amount of parking that’s shown on this plan, as it exists in this plan right here, which is why we’ve chosen to do the diamonds and provided the trees that way. We’re not losing any spots in that respect. We’ve also beefed up the landscaping and we certainly will comply, and this shows the compliance, with the types of trees on Weeks Road. However, I would like to mention that my landscape architect had given me just a few reasons why we’ve deviated from the township ordinance. The Queensbury Ordinance lists suggested plans for site approval. The list, however, according to our architect, lacks the variety, and so what he’s done to this is he’s provided some trees that are smaller in size, multi stemmed, and trees that have notable spring flowering. So that’s the variation, in a nutshell. I have a listing of the various trees, but that’s really the reason for the change. If the Board feels that that’s not a good reason, we certainly can go back to what the Board requires. However, given the flowering trees, and I thought that was a great reason for a deviation. If the Board thinks otherwise, we can certainly accommodate your request. MR. RINGER-By how much do you lack the 10% on the interior with landscaping? MR. LOTHIAN-Five percent. MR. RINGER-So half. MR. LOTHIAN-Five percent, as opposed to ten percent, and there’s been suggestions by your Staff to make some of these stalls smaller, to eight and a half by eighteen. That could be done, but the benefit is, I think we did a quick calculation. This is John Speer. He’s done those calculations. JOHN SPEER MR. SPEER-Yes. Out of 800 parking spaces, five percent of those, we’d be left with about 360 square feet of additional green space we’d be able to provide, or additional space to use in whatever way, whatever fashion. Where we have something on the order of 600,000 square feet. The lot area is 772,000 square feet. So it’s really a drop in the bucket. It’s not going to help much. It didn’t seem like it was, it provided enough of a benefit to go and proceed with that five percent change to an eight and a half foot wide stall, and that stall might be considered small in some places. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe the course of action is to eliminate some parking spaces altogether and replace them with green area. MR. SPEER-Yes, sir, but at this point, the site plan as presented provides 3.5 parking spaces per thousand square foot of retail space. The Town of Queensbury Code doesn’t contemplate any lower ratio than that. That ratio would be acceptable, I think, above 500,000 square foot of retail spaces. We’re proposing something on the order of 215,000 square feet of retail space. We’re required to provide four and a half parking spaces per thousand square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-But the Planning Board also has the authority to grant relief from parking spaces outside of what the Code requires, if we wanted to have less. MR. SPEER-I was under the impression, sir, that would come from the Zoning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it would come from this Board. MR. STROUGH-Well, we have up to 20% relief, as long as. MR. SPEER-And I believe that 3.5%, that comes out to 22% relief. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I’ll tell you what, you know, I’ve been here since Wal-Mart’s been here, and I’ve been here way before Wal-Mart. I’ve been here when Wal-Mart was trees. That whole eastern parking lot, never gets used. Christmas time, never gets used. At your busiest, busiest ever moment, I’ve never seen cars parked there for the purpose of customers walking in to Wal-Mart, never, ever, ever. In other words, I don’t think it’s needed. If it was me, and we’re getting more. We’re taking down a restaurant and we’re going to pave that, and I said in the very beginning, I said the last thing I want to see, and it’s written so in the Code, is a sea of pavement, and what we’re seeing is a sea of pavement. I don’t want it, I want you to be successful, bountiful, but I also want our community to look nice, and when I see there’s parking spaces that are not needed, it bothers me, because it could be green space. It could be landscaped. It could be made more attractive than pavement, and almost anything is more attractive than pavement, and I figured you had 427,413 square feet of paved area, and others, and that leaves us with 10%. That would be 42,71.3 square feet of landscape, if we get 10%, and that would give us more permeable space as well. So, I’m, for one, and I don’t think I’m alone, would like to see the parking numbers reduced and the landscaping improved, and we said this from Day One, but I think maybe you’ll see that we mean business. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, we’ve also learned from experience, too, and a couple of projects that have happened a few years ago, where it was the same kind of scenario where this is what the company needs for their parking lot and tells them what they need for the store generation and all that sort of stuff, with both K-Mart and Lowe’s, and those are parking lots that are way underutilized. They never ever max out, and if as one member, if I had to do over again, we wouldn’t have done as many parking spaces that are there, and, you know, we’ve learned by experience over the years, too, that sometimes the requirements and desires of the company, the corporation that’s coming in here, what their prototype stores say they need to have for parking, based on anticipated volume of business, is not accurate. Just like said, and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that whole eastern portion of that parking lot is never used. The only thing it’s used for right now is RV overnight camping. MR. LOTHIAN-As a possible remedy or solution, a suggestion just came up that I will talk to Wal-Mart. I know they have criteria that, and this is one of the lower ratios. However, if we propose to the Board to land bank the area of the diner as green space, and if it comes to a point where it’s proven that we do need this space, we can come back to the Board and turn this green space into parking. That’s the kind of compromise I think that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve done that with several projects in the past. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we do that quite often. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Even if you wanted to take that whole bottom portion of the eastern parking lot, make that green space by demonstrating that you have, you’re meeting the requirements for the store for parking, and leave it at green space, and at some point in time you feel you need to have that as macadam, you come back and ask for the modification. MR. LOTHIAN-I’m pointing to this area, but if it be another area or some other way that we can get the 10% and land bank that, and at some point in the future, be it a year or whatever of operation, if it becomes a necessity, we’ll be back before the Board, asking for relief with respect to that. MR. STROUGH-In my mind, you certainly made a move in the right direction. That’s a big, I think that’s a big plus making that restaurant, not only that, it works for you because it’s an area that you’re going to raze anyway, and so, you know, you might not need it for parking, and so if we could nicely landscape that, maybe and put a little public walkway through there or something and you might even be able to use if for the type of shrubbery that you’re going to be selling over here. Here’s this kind of bush and this kind of bush, you can buy these at Wal- Mart, a little placard or something like that, you know, but I think you’re on the right. MR. LOTHIAN-We’ll talk to Wal-Mart. We’ll try and get creative with that and hopefully we can come back with a solution. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I know that almost all the commercial people that come to us put in these locusts, these Lindens, these Zelkovias, the crabs, the ginkos, because they’re small trees, and after 10 years, they’re still small trees, and after 20 years. MR. LOTHIAN-They’re hardy. MR. STROUGH-But they’re hardy. MR. LOTHIAN-They’re hardy and they thrive. MR. STROUGH-And they stay small, and they are nice looking, in a small way, but I think a few shade trees was requested. I didn’t see any effort there, and I can understand, it limits your view of the store. You can’t put too many shade trees up or you’re going to really block out the visibility of the store, but, you know, we didn’t ask for too much. I think we asked for a few shade trees, maples, sugar maples, something more than a linden or a honey locust. MR. LOTHIAN-Okay, and we certainly are heading in the direction with the additional trees, as we’ve shown in this plan. So hopefully this is at least getting close. Maybe we’ll add a few shade trees in response to your comments tonight. That’s it with the landscaping and the parking. MR. MAC EWAN-What about relative to the, using landscaping to buffer both the neighborhood, the neighborhood to the south, and the apartment complex to the rear? What have you done to enhance that? MR. LOTHIAN-Well, we’ve shown additional landscaping. We’ll provide additional, within reason. I mean, there’s a dense growth that exists along the southerly line as it is. There’s densely wooded area there’s a fence, and then there’s, I don’t know if it’s pine or spruce that are out there on the side, but where we could, we’ll try and fill that in as best we could. MR. STROUGH-Now, in the front of the store, near the sidewalk, is that, to the east, go to the east, and I couldn’t tell is along the sidewalk, is that grass on either side of the sidewalk? MR. LOTHIAN-On the sidewalk along Route 9? MR. STROUGH-Yes. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LOTHIAN-Actually, between the sidewalk and Route 9 is grass. MR. SPEER-It’s an existing macadam walkway that’s proposed to be removed. That was picked up in your Staff notes, and we’re going to make the necessary revisions to show that that asphalt wall could be removed in its entirety and there’ll be approximately a five foot wide green swath there, next to a five foot wide concrete sidewalk. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SPEER-As opposed to the macadam swath that’s elsewhere along Route 9. MR. STROUGH-Right, we’re making good progress. MR. MAC EWAN-Relative to the seasonal display area, the Board had requested that those 11 parking spots eliminated and the seasonal area be landscaped and cordoned off from the general parking area. MR. LOTHIAN-I’m hoping that this green trussed portion here would lend itself to eliminating that requirement. This is actually prime parking. I understand this is seasonal, but in certain seasons there isn’t anything out there, and that becomes ideal parking space. It’s closest to the store. If we want to land bank for green space we’d prefer to do it further away from the store. That gives the customers the benefit of not having to walk so far to get. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re utilizing that area as seasonal display nine months out of the year. MR. LOTHIAN-At certain times of the year, and those other times of the year that it’s not being used, it’s important that. MR. MAC EWAN-January, February, and March. December you’re selling Christmas things out there, Christmas trees and such. April comes around, you’ve got all your seasonal stuff coming in there and it stays right out there through, until October. MR. LOTHIAN-We’ll see if that portion of this can be land banked as well, for green space, and if we prove that that is an impediment to their operations, we’ll be back to the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that still a concern with the Board? MR. RINGER-They seem to make a point, you know, the time that it’s not filled with fertilizer and stuff that they store there, it is filled with cars, because the customers do use that spot because it is closer to the building like they say. MR. STROUGH-And if they make an effort to improve the density of the vegetation in the residential areas, and they make that former restaurant area a nice landscaped area, you know, that’s going to go a whole big step to making me real happy. MR. RINGER-And they may meet Code, too, by doing that. MR. SANFORD-I agree, it’s not as much of an issue, but I think that John’s prior comment about having some shade trees, the way that that was left was you may come back with some shade trees. I think we would definitely like to see some shade trees. MR. STROUGH-And that restaurant parcel might be where you could put some shade trees without really obstructing your commercial place, kill two birds with one stone. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. HILTON-I think there’s a diagram in the Zoning Ordinance that talks, or shows a representation of the Route 9 design guidelines, and it also talks about the number of shade trees that’s required. I guess I would echo the comment that we’re not looking for every tree, but certainly there are spacing standards along street frontage, and again on the diagram it shows kind of what we’re looking for in the Code. We’re looking to improve the streetscape of Route 9, make it more pedestrian friendly, as I think you’ve done with the addition of the sidewalk, but certainly, you know, some nice trees to line the road. I guess just one other additional comment, having not seen this plan, I would certainly like to take the time to compare it to what’s been submitted previously and provide some comment. MR. SPEER-Briefly about this plan, we did provide 54 trees in the interior parking field, which is what would be required under your one tree per fifteen spaces. Along Route 9, the Route 9 guidelines require us to plant one tree, 35 feet on center, I believe it would be, and that would come out to a total of 17 trees required. We do propose 20 trees within the Route 9 frontage, but they’re clustered, because we’re not proposing necessarily the shade trees, but more ornamental trees. So they’re clustered, they are well evenly spaced, but they’re clustered towards the ends. We do satisfy, as far as the number of trees, we also provide two rows of evergreen shrub screening from the highway to the parking field. MR. MAC EWAN-Why did you choose to cluster and not go by the Corridor Design Standards? MR. SPEER-That was also a landscape architecture artistic decision, and I think it’s a very appealing way, as opposed to regimented 35 feet on center with a maple tree approach. MR. MAC EWAN-In your opinion, if they were done in accordance with the Design Corridor Standards of being 35 foot on center, would they obstruct the view of the building and/or the signs on the building? MR. SPEER-I don’t know if that’s a primary concern of ours, necessarily. MR. LOTHIAN-That certainly is a concern that we obstruct the signage, that you have signs out there. To cover them with trees is not necessarily what we’re trying to accomplish, and clustering the lower growth trees in these areas would certainly allow for more visibility of the signage. So we’ll talk to our architect, and I’ll see if he can possibly work out where we keep the ornamentals in the corners and throw some shade trees in the center to see if that works, and if Wal-Mart’s acceptable to that suggestion. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members with regard to landscaping? Okay. Lighting. When we tabled this in July, the Board requested that you submit three plans, one plan showing 20 foot high lights, one plan showing 30 foot high lights, and one plan showing 40 foot high lights. MR. LOTHIAN-And we provided a hybrid of that request, although we did provide the 40 foot lights. MR. SPEER-The lighting plan that we propose is Drawing 25.01, and that has lights at 42 feet high. It’s a 39 foot pole and a 3 foot concrete pad that they’re sitting on. We also provided 25.01 Exhibit A, which would be 20 foot high poles, 25.01 Exhibit B, which was 30 foot high poles, and Exhibit C, which had 20 foot high poles in the area of the southern side of the lot, next to the single family residential, and moving on to 42 foot poles, 42 foot mounting heights, I should say, in the center of our lot. So we did try to be compliant. We are looking to reach some type of agreement with the Board on the lighting of this project. MR. MAC EWAN-But I know we had lengthy discussions regarding the lighting, and as I recall, the Board’s position was that they were really looking for you to conform with the design standards in the Zoning Ordinance for lighting, and it went back and forth in our discussions a little bit. So we were willing to be receptive to see what plans you could show us that would 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) work, and it was agreed that that night you would supply us three different plans so we could review each one for the different height poles and come to some sort of conclusion as to what you would need for lighting up there, and we didn’t get that. We specifically asked for three different plans with three different pole heights. MR. SPEER-And those plans weren’t submitted that I just described, Exhibits 25.01, Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and Exhibit C? MR. HILTON-What we have is 25.01, the plan, I guess. MR. SPEER-Is part of the plan set. MR. HILTON-Is your regular lighting plan. We have 25.01, 25.01 B & C. B being the 30 foot mounting heights, 25.01 C being the hybrid of 20 at the, I guess southern property line, and the rest being 42 feet high, and that’s all I had. MR. SPEER-The 25.01 Exhibit A, that was submitted earlier. I think that was submitted even prior to our previous meeting. I believe it was Mr. Strough, I believe you said that we were trying to scare you with the number of poles, that the 20 foot high scenario, just to refresh your memories, we did provide that plan. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but they were a single fixture, and I said you could go with a double fixture, I think you were putting forward the worst case scenario, which I probably would be if I were in your shoes. MR. SPEER-What we’re working on now is a plan for 20 foot high mounting heights, 400 watt fixtures. We’re trying to get more economical, based on that Exhibit A that we submitted earlier. We don’t have that prepared for this evening. It takes a little bit of time to work it out, but if and when there’s another meeting, we’ll have that prepared. MR. STROUGH-Well, what scared me more than anything was when you jumped from the current 400 watt lamps to 1,000 watt lamps. When, if you’ll also remember, I talked a little discussion on light pollution, and I think I asked what, in all my research on light pollution, what’s the one commercial enterprise talked about over and over and over again, as the worst violator of light pollution? Okay. We don’t need a second guess. So, when we jump to 1,000 watt, you know, lamps, that did bother me. The 400 ones that are there seem to be doing a satisfactory job, and I also read the spectro power distribution and the visual eye response, and it was all very interesting, and I’m pretty much sold the metal halide is safer. So I’m willing to go with the metal halide versus the sodium. MR. SPEER-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-But I think we do have to tone down the lighting because when I go skiing on West Mountain, I know where Wal-Mart is, and that should not be. MR. LOTHIAN-Hopefully we’ll have a plan that will satisfy your criteria. MR. MAC EWAN-The plan that you are working on now is 20 foot high poles, 400 watts, is that the plan you’re working on now? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Throughout the entire parking field? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. We will also show the lighting on the building. There are a few lights above the doors in the back. They exist today. We’ll be re-fixturing those in the future, but just to reiterate, that the metal halide is the preferred lighting fixture, as opposed to the high pressure sodium. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-And more towards the totopic, rather than the photopic? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else with lighting? MR. HILTON-I guess I’d just be interested to see that plan. MR. LOTHIAN-Okay. We’ll provide you for that. If I could just jump, before you go to the building design aspects, the stormwater management, I know C.T. Male is not here tonight, but they did mention that they noticed standing water in the 48 inch line, which possibly means that that line may be clogged with silt and is no longer infiltrating into the ground, and what we’ll do is, what I propose to do, is on the construction drawings provide a note that the line will be dug up and replaced with free draining material. We’ll eliminate that clog. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that part of your response, though, to C.T. Male? Will you make that part of your response to C.T. Male? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. So that would be part of the contract documents, during construction. It’s an 80 foot section of 48 inch pipe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Is that the only place you noticed a problem? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we get to the building design, let’s just touch on noise for a minute. Because I know some of the stuff that we asked you to provide information for you did, and we appreciate that. Just to reiterate here, I guess, we wanted to see what the plans were for schedules of deliveries, enforcement polices and such like that, which you have provided the store’s, company’s I guess, what do they call it, friendly neighbor policy or something like that, I think that’s what it’s called. MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We wanted you to verify the external PA system used for auto repair and I guess we were looking at that to see if that could be eliminated, toned down or whatever the case. MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know really where we are at that point right now. MR. RINGER-Is that external or internal? When the PA goes off, that’s always, I wouldn’t think you’d hear that from outside. MR. LOTHIAN-It’s internal. MR. RINGER-I don’t know. I mean, when I bring my car there for grease and oil I hear it inside, but I don’t think I’d hear it outside. MR. LOTHIAN-There won’t be an external speaker. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-One thing we talked about, and I don’t really remember where we’re going with this, was as far as, relative to noise, we were talking about a concrete wall buffer for the unloading dock area. MR. LOTHIAN-Concrete masonry unit, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the area that you’ve got there, and you were going to provide data on the db. MR. STROUGH-They did. MR. LOTHIAN-On the decibel reduction due to that. Yes, we provide calculations to show that. MR. STROUGH-As long as we’re on that topic, the cmu only knocks down the five decibel units, but that’s concrete. Is there other material that we could use that might do better than the cmu, at attenuating the sound? MR. LOTHIAN-I would defer that comment to the architects, only for exterior type of concrete masonry units. If there’s anything, we’ll investigate that, and if there’s anything we can do to decrease the decibels even further and mitigate that, we’ll. MR. STROUGH-Well, because I know they make those concrete forms that have Styrofoam, internal Styrofoam. I mean even that might make it significantly even, I mean, I don’t know. I’m not an engineer. I’m just guessing, but there might be other materials that might be better that pure concrete in reducing sound. MR. LOTHIAN-We’ll look into that. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, the only other material I ever see along roadways would be wooden fences, like I’m thinking of Route 7 going down to Albany, where they have the large wooden fence for noise reduction in the neighborhood. MR. LOTHIAN-We’ll explore that for additional reduction, and furthermore the landscaping, we’ll add trees in between the existing trees where we’ll beef up the landscaping in the rear of the property. MR. MAC EWAN-Jump back to stormwater for a minute. I mean, you talked about that one catch basin there that you were working on. Is there any other outstanding issues that you need to address with C.T. Male relative to stormwater? MR. LOTHIAN-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-We haven’t gotten a signoff from C.T. Male yet, have we, George? MR. HILTON-No, we have a letter, comment letter from them, dated 9/15/03. They’ve raised, I guess, additional questions, but no signoff, and as far as I know, no response from the applicant to that 9/15 C.T. Male letter. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re in receipt of that letter? MR. LOTHIAN-Yes, we are, and the issue is that buried system and questionable infiltration, and we’ll respond to that in writing, and hopefully that will satisfy C.T. Male to take care of that during construction. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else relative to noise? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, the only other comment I have on the noise study was that you use the receptor as the side of the building, and in the past, we’ve used the edge of the property as the receptors, all because that’s someone’s domain. I mean, theoretically they could have a picnic table right on the edge of this property, and that noise is going to impact them. So you go to the worst case scenario, so you go to the property line, but, you know, you tried to soften the blow by saying, well, the decibel level would be this to the side of the building, and you’ve increased the distance, and of course with the (lost words) and all that, then you, you know, you conclude by saying but if you were inside the house, the decibel level would be only there, and, you know, it’s pretty satisfactory, by the time you get inside the house and the windows are closed, but, you know, and the only really tough spot, and I agreed with your analysis, was the 80 plus decibel levels that we were seeing on the south side near that residential area with the occasional truck going by, but, with some right signage, as we talked earlier, we can eliminate a lot of that trucking on that side, and eliminate some of that. MR. LOTHIAN-We absolutely intend to, yes, convert, bring the truck traffic to the north side. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-But (lost words) standpoint, just moving that truck entrance over there is going to eliminate the majority of all the neighbor’s concerns, with the exception of Robert Gardens South, just to the rear there. MR. STROUGH-And, Larry, if they could come up with a better soundproofing wall than. MR. RINGER-Right along that Robert Gardens area. MR. STROUGH-Then pour concrete, that would solve that problem. MR. LOTHIAN-It certainly would be an improvement to the existing conditions that are out there today. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it on noise? Any other issues with stormwater? MR. STROUGH-Well, stormwater, I’m going to trust Jim Houston on that, and, you know, he’s pretty alert and watchful. I just get lost in everything else. I’ve got a full time job besides this Planning Board job. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Building design. The Board requested that your Maine store design be utilized. BJ PHILLIPS MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. Again, my name is BJ Phillips. I’m with Perry Butcher Architects. I have prepared a little short Power Point presentation that I’d like to run through real quick with you, just to kind of show you where we started and where we’ve gone and show you the fact that we think we’re coming along with this, you know, we think we’re in line with what the Board is wanting to see. I don’t know, let me run through this for you real quick. Okay. What we have to keep in mind is that what we are dealing with here is a Wal-Mart expansion. We have an existing Wal-Mart store with existing materials that’s, you know, it’s cmu, masonry block with effice on it, you know, we’ve got some existing colors and the other thing you have to keep in mind that we’ve got an Ames grocery store that we’re demolishing. We’re going to tear that down and expand over into that space. Now, on 5/22, we came back, and that was when the Board decided that they were going to be the Lead Agency in the SEQRA. So we didn’t have a chance to talk about the elevations that we brought at that time, which, you know, we know that you didn’t want to see anyway, because what we had done was the typical expansion of the existing materials, existing colors, and, you know, it’s a pretty standard design, but at the end of that meeting, I did get a chance to talk to you for a second, and you said you wanted to see some earth tone colors, you wanted to see a little more articulation on the sides and maybe 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) in the center. So I went back and tried to do that again for you. You also mentioned that you wanted us to reference your Home Depot, and as you can tell, this is in May when we were here and we took these pictures of Home Depot, and it obviously wasn’t finished, but we took, what we noticed from this was, you know, you had your articulated parapet. You had a couple of attached canopies. Your building is pretty much flat all the way across. There’s no articulation in the footprint of the building, which we thought was a point that, you know, we do have, that was pretty nice, and you also have some cmu columns and pilasters at the Garden Center. So when we came back in July, this is the elevation that we had. We went back and put some articulation on this roof line. We’ve changed your colors to light beige and dark beige. I know that they’re called out as, you know, pink beige and cambara, but those are strictly the Sherwin Williams color call outs. That’s not the actual color of it. They are a beige, and we use the blue for the accent color. We’ve also give you a center element that adds some articulation toward the center. We’ve also added a bus stop and some pilasters that help divide the space. Now, at that time, you said it still wasn’t quite what you were looking for, and you pointed out this store here that the Board, we keep referring to it as Maine, but it’s actually North Redding, Massachusetts, because that was done by our office. We went back and looked it up, and it was in North Redding, but the thing that I want everyone to keep in mind is that with this store, it was designed as a Division One Wal-Mart, in the coastal area. So that’s how they went in and, you know, they gave it this language. They put on some siding, and it was kind of a coastal design, but it was designed that way from the original. They didn’t have cmu masonry walls that were existing that they had to try to deal with and add on to. MR. MAC EWAN-Can I interrupt? What’s a Division One store? MR. PHILLIPS-A Division One is what you’ve got existing now. It’s just general merchandise. It doesn’t have the super center addition. It doesn’t have the grocery. It’s just standard retail. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but it looks nice. Now just make it longer. MR. PHILLIPS-That’s easier said than done, but I did go back and I tried to add some of that language with the large peak over the entry. It’s giving you some canopy area, some cover, so that when you come in to the doors, you’re not going straight in to the doors. You’ve also got some canopy down here that’s pretty deep and gives you some space to get underneath there. We have given you the pilasters at the Garden Center. We kept the articulation the same on the ends, and we’ve kind of re-vamped this center element to try to give it a little more articulation. We’ve added a couple of more pilasters to kind of break up the surface. We’ve been trying to be accommodating. It’s hard to go in and put clapboard siding on a building that’s 700 feet long, and that already has existing cmu material that we’re trying to tie in to, and this is just kind of some three-dimensional images to show you what the scale and what it’s going to look like, you know, the canopies create space and shadow lines. They break up the surface of the building. We have some setbacks right here where the footprint steps back and you’ve got more area and space. You’ve got your pilasters along your Garden Center which, you know, should help it to look pretty nice, and we’ve also got this one that I haven’t touched on down here, which is your bus stop that you’ve requested we place on our site in front of our building. Here’s what’s existing today. You’ve all seen this bus stop, and last meeting we were here in July, you couldn’t really tell what our bus stop was, and you referred to it as a metal box, and I just wanted to show with this slide that it’s going to be articulated the same as the building. We’re going to use cmu, some effice. It’ll be painted the same colors to match, and it’ll have some standing sheet metal roof on it, and it should be quite a bit larger facility so it’ll hold more people in poorer weather. So basically this is just a recap of what’s existing today with the blue gray building and the Ames. What you really told us to look at and base our design on was your Home Depot, and here’s what we’re offering you today, which we think is pretty well up to that standard with what we have to work with with the existing building. So now I’d open it up to your comments. MR. RINGER-I think it’s a big step forward, and I may stand alone on that, but I kind of like it, and I think it fits in well with our Route 9 corridor. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I did like that Massachusetts store. It really looks nice. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, it does, but. MR. STROUGH-Well, you know, and other things I notice about the Massachusetts store. It didn’t have the “Always”. It didn’t have all the rest of the signage, which kind of ruins your look, in my mind. I know you’re going to need Wal-Mart, but blue isn’t an earth tone. Is it absolutely mandatory, the blue background? Because I see Massachusetts. MR. PHILLIPS-No, it’s not. If you’d rather have green like you have on the Home Depot today, green we can do for you. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, that was going to be my comment. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the thing that I found that I disliked the most, just from one person, was the blue. I’d rather see, you know, a forest green color. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, absolutely. Sure. We can definitely do green if that’ll help get this thing moved along. MR. STROUGH-Can we do some, a little bit more in the way of architectural detail around where the door entry areas are, instead of the “Always” have something nice there that’s not so commercial looking? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes. That’s something that we can also try to accommodate. The “Always” sign is something that Wal-Mart likes to keep. It kind of comes along with the super center package. As you’ll notice in your existing Division One today, really the Wal-Mart is the only sign you’ve got up there. You’ve got a couple of more small ones that point out the TLE and one that points out the One Hour Photo, I think that is up there, but, yes, a lot of these extra signs are ones that do come along with this package, like you’ve got your bakery, deli meat and produce. You’ve got your signs over the doors that tell you which side you want to be on, whether it’s the low prices for the retail side, or the food center, for the grocery area. MR. STROUGH-Could you make your center parapet a little more dramatic? MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, that’s something that we can also do. We had a version that had something on there, but when we developed it into 3-D, it didn’t quite look right. So we took it off. It kind of looked like it was an add-on, and it didn’t kind of fit. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just trying to get away from the continuous roof line. MR. PHILLIPS-Yes, I understand. I agree. MR. STROUGH-And that would help take away from that continuous roof line. See the parapet. If you could make that a little bit more dramatic, it would help break that roof line up. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I mean, maybe what you had was too much. Maybe this is too little. Maybe something in between would look right. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and if you could do something architectural with where the “Always” is and get rid of the “Always”, and I agree with Chris. The green canopies and the green background for the Wal-Mart would go a long ways. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-John, could you just clarify what you mean by the parapet in the center? What do you want to see there? MR. STROUGH-Do you see where the parapet is? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. STROUGH-If he could make it maybe a little higher and maybe put a little something to it. MR. SEGULJIC-Would a peak do anything there? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if a peak, I don’t know if I want another peak. Then it starts too look too peaky. Maybe a little bit, and Mr. Phillips even said he worked with it at one time. You could even make it cantilevered like the Home Depot even. Do you know what I’m saying, maybe a slight pitch? MR. PHILLIPS-Sure. Yes. MR. STROUGH-So, yes, I am willing to work, Mr. Phillips, I appreciate what you did do. The bus stop is a good improvement, and I saw it and noticed it, and I appreciated you paid attention to that, and can I work with this building? Yes, and like I said, there’s give and take. If you’re willing to give us what we want on the landscaping, the lighting, and you’ve done things on the truck, we’re going to eventually get there. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Sure. Okay. So I want to just reiterate what I need to do to try to get this so next time we come back it’s going to get an approval, because what I don’t want to happen is come back next time. MR. SANFORD-We can’t guarantee you that. MR. PHILLIPS-I know you can’t guarantee that, but I don’t want to come back next time and say, well, we’ve kind of decided that we want clapboard siding on the whole thing, or we want quick brick on the whole thing. MR. MAC EWAN-No. We’re not going that direction. MR. PHILLIPS-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I think what I’m saying, if you were to take this and take some of the commercialism out of this, take the blue out, put the green up, do something with that parapet, help break up that roof line. It’s not everything we want, but. MR. PHILLIPS-It’ll be a lot closer. MR. STROUGH-It’ll be a lot closer, yes. MR. HILTON-Just for clarification, is the Board comfortable with the beige, or are you looking for a more darker earth tone, different brown? I mean, that’s one thing. MR. STROUGH-Well, as long as the pink is not really a pink. MR. PHILLIPS-No, it’s not a pink, but that’s Sherwin Williams name for that color, and we can test the colors, maybe try to get something a little darker for you? If you’d like to see a darker color? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-I, personally, don’t have a problem with the way the colors. MR. PHILLIPS-Next time I come I will bring paint samples for you, actual samples of the colors. I apologize for not having that this time. Because those printouts, they never come out quite right. What you’re seeing in the large printout is what we tried to color match. The 11 by 17’s are not as good as, for the color, but that is closer to the color, the actual color. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I think we made good headway on that. MR. PHILLIPS-Great. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else relative to building architecture design? MR. STROUGH-No, I think we’re making good progress. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there anything that you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. HENTSCHKE-I think that’s it, unless you guys have questions or there’s public questions. MR. MAC EWAN-I am going to open up the public hearing and let the public comment? MR. HENTSCHKE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to come up and read your letter, Stephanie? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPHANIE DI LALLO BITTER MRS. BITTER-My name is Stephanie DiLallo Bitter. I’m here from Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes, for the record. I want to first commend the Board for all the detailed review that they’re making with this project. It’s definitely appreciated by the adjoining landowners. I’m going to read a letter that we compiled, and I’ve learned a lot from this public hearing, and I’ll comment on that after I review the letter. “Dear Chairman MacEwan and Members of the Planning Board: As you may be aware, our firm represents Whispering Pines Associates, Inc., Ray Supply, as well as Flower Drum Song, which are all businesses that are adjacent to the Wal- Mart property located along Route 9. Although our clients are generally in support of a Wal- Mart expansion project, they are concerned that major issues are being overlooked by the applicant. Specifically, they are concerned with the expansion’s impact on traffic, noise, odor as well as the visual impact it will present. With regard to traffic, I am attaching a letter from Peter Faith of Edwards and Kelcey which outlines his review of the traffic study which was prepared by the applicant. In this correspondence, Mr. Faith concludes that the impacts of the potential Wal-Mart expansion have not been adequately measured and with such he recommends that a new traffic study be performed. With this recommendation he identifies that a new study should be performed which would include the following:” Before I identify this list, I just want to say that he also reviewed the September 15, 2003 data that was prepared by the Wal-Mart team. He’d like to see, “1) An analysis of the Saturday peak periods; 2) A comparison of trip rates from the existing Wilton Wal-Mart and the proposed expanded Wal-Mart; 3) An analysis of current and proposed conditions at Ray Supply for all three peak periods; 4) An analysis of the northern signalized Wal-Mart driveway; and 5) Clarification if a connection of the Ray Supply and Wal-Mart parking areas is being offered as mitigation.” Which I believe they did identify in this hearing. “Due to the fact that the applicant omitted these items from its study, it is our position that the study is incomplete. As a result, in order for there to be an accurate conclusion made, it is encouraged that the Board require a new traffic study be conducted and that these items be specifically examined. In addition, our client, Whispering Pines Associates, Inc., who is the owner of the complex immediately west of the Wal-Mart property, is concerned that there will undoubtedly be an increase in noise and odor with this expansion project. Specifically, it feels that there will be a significant impact experienced by its residents due to the 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) increase in truck traffic and early morning deliveries that will occur in the rear of the store. Moreover, our client is also concerned with the visual impact that this project will have on its residential community. As a result, it is requested that as a condition of any approval, Wal- Mart be required to construct a berm, which would contain a fair number of trees, together with a fence which would separate these properties. It is our position that a berm and fence are necessary in order to mitigate the noise, odor and visual impact which will result from this expansion. These issues are not only items that are necessary to consider for site plan review but are also certainly SEQR issues as well. With such we hope that you consider the impacts that we have identified as well as the mitigation measures that we have proposed.” Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? NANCY OLSON MRS. OLSON-Hello. I’m Nancy, and my husband Dan Olson, and again I want to thank all of the members of your Board for taking your time with this and trying to correct some things that haven’t been right with the previous plan. A few things that I want to comment on is the noise, and, Number One, even though they show a different entry way and just supposedly one garden truck going in, what about the supplies for the lubricating center, and enforcement. In the years that we have lived next to Wal-Mart, we have called midnight, in the winter, in the dead of winter, two, three in the morning because of noise coming from there, that we can hear through our closed windows, and we get no response. We either get a, well, I didn’t know about it, I’ll take care of it, but they never follow through with anything. So how is that going to be enforced? Really just having signs up there for them, after it’s all built and done and said, that they will definitely route the traffic that way. The managers that we have complained to in the past do not follow through, do not take actions to correct anything. We’re still awakened in the middle of the night, and can hear the sweepers going around and this is twelve o’clock, one, two, three, and we still just keep one window open in the bedroom which is blocked by our chimney, because I don’t dare open the other two windows, the one that faces Wal-Mart, and the one next to it, because the volume of the noise is much worse, and also in the wintertime with everything closed up, the noise is unbelievable. Yes, we do hear the trucks and I appreciate your trying to get the truck traffic away from there, but I’m very concerned about enforcement, because Wal-Mart has not shown to be a friendly neighbor in the years that they’ve been there, and also the middle of the night. We have heard them putting together equipment, when spring, this past spring, they were putting together barbecue equipment. We could hear the hammering, the pounding, we’ve heard sawing. We’ve heard them repair a roof or put up a roof over the Garden Center. We’ve heard metal clanging, to say nothing about the employees that still run their radios in the middle of the night and we hear singing throughout the night, not every single night but enough nights through the summertime, and also the speakers may be internal, but the way, possibly through the Garden Center, we can hear it at our house. It’s not as loud as it used to be, but we still can hear, you know, paging somebody or, you know, where are you, do this, or go here to this department, and this is in the night when the store is closed to customers, but it’s open for their 24 hour business of making improvements or cleaning up the store or getting supplies in, repositioning the supplies. So that is our concern still, and again, I can’t tell you how much we appreciate your having them reroute, but I’m worried about enforcement, their enforcement, because the gentlemen that are here tonight, they’re doing what they can, but they’re not here for the day to day operation. They’re not the managers. They’re not the night managers, and how do we get that enforcement. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something we’ll have to work on with them. MRS. OLSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. JIM VALENTI 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. VALENTI-Hi. Jim Valenti with Whispering Pines townhouse apartments, one of the owners. John spoke about the decibels being 80 something decibels. At how many feet was that at 80 something decibels? 15? MR. STROUGH-Well, it was, I think, 75 feet from the truck, and then it attenuates with distance. MR. VALENTI-So it’s 80 something decibels 75 feet away? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VALENTI-Okay. I have a problem with that noise, you know, noise pollution. We speak at 60 decibels. So when you’re talking, you convert it to logarithmic, 70 decibels would be 10 times louder than what I’m speaking. So 86 then would be 100 times, at 75 feet is that? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m reading it right now, so I can be accurate. I was just going by memory. MR. VALENTI-And I’d have to, you know, freshen up on that, too, but I believe that’s what it is is 10 times 10, times 10. MR. STROUGH-At 80 decibels at 15 meters, 49 feet. MR. VALENTI-Yes, which would be on the property line. MR. STROUGH-From the center line of travel. MR. VALENTI-Yes, and then on traffic, that entry off of Weeks Road, since they’re not going to have, I don’t see why they can’t convert the bus route and close that entry so trucks do not want to travel down Weeks Road and turn in at the end. Right now there’s an ingress and egress there on Weeks Road, on the westerly end. If they can close that off, since they’re going to enter and, ingress and egress off of Route 9, I’d like to see that closed off in the back. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, two things. I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, usually we don’t get into a discussion, but two things that we’re working on is, one, they may come up with a better sound attenuating wall, and, two, the signage, they’re going to work at improving the directing of trucks. They’re going to do a better job at signage. So maybe that will solve those problems. MR. VALENTI-Very good. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? Okay. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Do you gentlemen want to come back up? MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, I just have a letter here that we received for public comment. I’ll read it into the record really quickly. It’s from David J. Valenti, Operations Manager of Whispering Pines, to Jonathan Lapper, at Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes. Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart, and Rhodes have been retained by Whispering Pines to represent them. It states, “Dear Jon: Pursuant to our conversation, please be advised Whispering Pines Associates, LLC received a letter of complaint from Mr. Patrick Dickinson of Building 25, Needle Park Circle, Apartment #7, relating to early morning truck deliveries, noise, and the negative visual appearance behind Wal-Mart. Mr. Dickinson specifically noted that deliveries to Wal-Mart may continue throughout the day as late as 12:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., and would begin again at 4:30 to 5:30 a.m. The noise impact is intolerable. While the Dickinson’s enjoy their balcony, they are overlooking an unsightly landscape of dumpsters, storage containers, pallets, carts, empty display racks. On several occasions, they have identified rodents, which they believe to be rats, making the environment in which they live very uncomfortable. They brought to our attention that Wal-Mart maintains a grease pit behind their center, which evidently is leaking into storm drainage. Exhaust from the tractor trailer is nauseating. While listening to work personnel performing their duties, their use of vulgar language and banging of equipment has made the 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) Dickinson’s life at Whispering Pines so unpleasant that they would like to terminate their lease. Mr. Dickinson contacted Wal-Mart management in an attempt to discuss his concerns, and he was met with this response – ‘if it is too noisy, sir, maybe you should move’. Consequently, Whispering Pines has received notification from Mr. Dickinson that he is seeking legal counsel to terminate his lease based on Article 6, Tenant’s Quiet Enjoyment, provision attached. I would request that you address this matter at the public hearing held by the Queensbury Planning Board on Thursday, September 18, 2003. Sincerely, David J. Valenti, CPM Operations Manager” And that’s all we have as far as new written comment. MR. STROUGH-But in response to some of the neighbor’s concerns, this is, let me read it into the record so it’s in the record, too. Wal-Mart’s proposed good neighbor plan, okay. This is supposedly to improve a reaction to community concerns that they are directing the store manager to respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of any letter expressing concerns to them. They have to respond to you within 30 days according to this contract, and some other things. So you may want to read this good neighbor plan, but it does say that they have to respond to you within 30 days. So, and it says other things, too. I think that, you know, the Olson’s may want to see a copy of what’s being proposed. MR. RINGER-I’ll tell you, one time I was in Myrtle Beach, and I made a call, 1-800-Wal-Mart, or actually I didn’t make the call, but the person ahead of me made a call, because he had a complaint with the store, calling 1-800-Wal-Mart, within three minutes after he hung up, you wouldn’t believe the response that that store got immediately. The managers were up front trying to address the complaint that this person had. So 1-800-Wal-Mart really works. I witnessed that down South. It was unbelievable. My wife and I just couldn’t believe how quick Wal-Mart in Arkansas got to the store in Myrtle Beach and said take care of this problem and do it now. I mean, there were managers, I’ve never seen so many managers come forward. So just 1-800-Wal-Mart is something to remember, I guess. MRS. OLSON-Was that in the day time? Do you think it would work in the middle of the night I wonder? MR. RINGER-I don’t know. This happened to be about eight o’clock in the evening when my wife and I were in there, and this was a new store. DAN OLSON MR. OLSON-The problem at midnight, when you have a problem. MR. HENTSCHKE-I just wanted to clarify, well, to explain to the public and the Olsons in particular about the good neighbor plan. The Town Code does have a provision that talks about a good neighbor plan, and we’ve heard your comments about these kind of operational issues, stuff that’s kind of separated from the design stuff, stuff that’s a little bit more difficult for us to address, but stuff that needs to be addressed. So we have proposed that, if, there is provisions under the Code for having a meeting that’s maybe attended by the Staff or something, and we’ve proposed, we’ve offered to come and have the store manager and to have somebody from Wal-Mart to come and to try to work some of these types of issues going forward. Noise is a concern, clearly a big concern, and, you know, we want to put together a contract, something that’s going to help make sure that things are addressed as best they can be. The biggest problem I think, it seems to me, is that stuff doesn’t get communicated to the right people. The people that can make the decisions to address it. It sounds like maybe it’s getting caught at lower levels where people are just being, you know, just being jerks or whatever. So, I mean, we’ve got to get through that, and so, one thing that, I’m not sure, we’ll take the Planning Board’s direction on this, is one idea would be that the next time we come back for a meeting maybe to have some other meeting with, you know, whatever the Code provides, something with the Staff or whatever, with any interested neighbors or associations, so that you could talk to the managers. We can get an idea of what you’re looking for. Just a suggestion. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. SANFORD-Well, one suggestion I have is a note. In your cast of characters you don’t have anybody who’s employed by Wal-Mart here, and so after this process is over, you’re going to go and the architects are going to go away. It would be nice if the store manager, perhaps, was present to hear some of these concerns, first hand. MR. HENTSCHKE-I think we can probably bring him next meeting, and also if you want to have a separate meeting where the people can talk directly to the store manager and somebody from Wal-Mart. I think we can arrange to have that happen, providing that she’s available. There’s some people in particular that have been helping with the draft good neighbor plan that would be interested and would like to talk with the community residents. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t go away. Anything you wanted to add, George? MR. RINGER-Well, that grease pit, if they are emptying into it, that would be something to look in to. That’s pretty serious in nature. MR. HENTSCHKE-We will. MR. RINGER-Is 12:30 a.m. normal deliveries? I mean, that seems really odd. MR. LOTHIAN-We’ve submitted a delivery schedule that we got from the store manager that’s supposed to outline what their delivery schedule is. I don’t have it handy with me, but I don’t believe that it was supposed to go that late. Do we have that? MR. RINGER-I mean, that really seems, 12:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. seems really out of whack for deliveries. MR. LOTHIAN-Yes. I don’t see anything like that in here. According to the schedule that we have, I don’t believe that that’s supposed to be happening. So I’m hoping that this is something that can be addressed through meetings with the Wal-Mart people, with the store manager, and this kind of good neighbor plan contacts that we would love to do. MR. RINGER-Yesterday I was up at Wal-Mart last evening, and it was about 8:30, and I noticed two tractor trailers idling, and they were idling out front, and I’m wondering if that’s part of the things that you’re doing for the neighbors, or was it just coincidental that these tractors were out in the front of the parking lot not behind where the loading docks are? Unusual? MR. LOTHIAN-I think that’s unusual. MR. RINGER-Okay. Because my wife and I were there, and I said, I wonder if they’re there idling because they don’t want to be out back. MR. MAC EWAN-The other side of the coin is they could have been waiting to get to the dock. There might have been a truck out there. MR. RINGER-Yes, but at eight o’clock at night I didn’t think there would be. MR. STROUGH-Well, I noticed the same thing, Larry. It wasn’t in the morning. MR. MAC EWAN-How do we verify this grease trap issue? Is that something Code Enforcement can look at, or is it something that has to be done through a different avenue? MR. HILTON-I guess at this point if you want to direct Staff, we can take it, we can look into it. I’m not sure what we’ll find or we’ll start, we’ll begin the process. We’ll look into it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Our list is getting shorter. We were at that list, and now we’re at that list. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-I feel we’ve made some good progress. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re gaining here. All right. Let me recap where I think, based on conversations we had tonight. Revise the parking requirements, meeting the 10%. The diner area is to become a landscaped green space area. Two, under traffic, the signage is. MR. STROUGH-Well, on the landscaping issue, they’re supposed to beef up the residential areas on the west and south, and shade trees. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m getting that. I’m jumping all around here, but as far as along the residential property lines. MR. STROUGH-They’re supposed to offer something a little bit more substantial than what’s there. MR. RINGER-And a fence or noise barrier there by the Whispering Pines. MR. STROUGH-Well, basically just give them the minutes, I think, and as far as some of the other complaints about the Flower Drum Song, if they’re getting this beautiful landscaped area right next to them, hello. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let me just recap this, then we can go through and embellish it a little bit. Okay. Revise the parking requirements, meaning the 10%. The diner area becomes a landscaped green space area. Traffic and signage needed to be revised for the truck deliveries. Also traffic, they need to get the New York State DOT signoff. Route 9 design standards for landscaping along the roadway. We wanted that more in tune to what the Corridor Design Standards are, right? MR. RINGER-The way they described it, it didn’t sound bad, you know, buffering that along there versus putting the trees 35 feet apart. I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-I would like to, at the very least, get a better idea of what it’s going to look like with the clustering of trees, because I think if you do the standard, you’re going to block visibility to the store, which I think is a legitimate concern that they would have, but I would like to have a better idea of what it’s going to look like. MR. RINGER-But it sounds like a well designed plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Also inclusive of that was to be the sidewalk, right? Under lighting, a lighting plan with 20 foot high, 400 watt lights. Right? MR. STROUGH-Yes, four to one ratio, or something close. MR. MAC EWAN-Research an alternative noise reduction material for the unloading areas. Address the C.T. Male letter of 9/15/03, the comments in their letter. Revise the building sign area to colors of green versus the blues, and enhance the entrances with more architectural detailing. MR. STROUGH-Without the signage. MR. MAC EWAN-Without the signage. MR. SANFORD-Reduce building signage. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Along the residential property lines, more intensive enhanced landscaping with either berming and/or fencing, and the last one for Staff was to investigate the grease trap issue. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, and you know there’s one other thing, too. Sign. I know we’re going to get a big Wal-Mart. The Code says 25 foot. I’m going to stick to the Code. I don’t want a 30 foot sign, but that’s what they want. Twenty-five foot sign. That’s Code. I think, you know, this is my opinion. I’m only one member of the Planning Board, but signs should identify your presence, not advertise your presence. Okay. Your advertising can be done in the newspaper and in t.v. You don’t have to do it through a sign. All the sign has to do is identify I’m here. It doesn’t have to speak so loudly. It doesn’t have to shout. It just has to talk. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want them to revise that, stick with Code? MR. STROUGH-Stick with Code. MR. RINGER-A 700 foot long building, how does a 25 foot, you know, I don’t know, John, I don’t know if, to me, a larger sign on a 700 foot long building isn’t necessarily bad. I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-No, I’m talking about the sign, the pylon sign. MR. RINGER-I thought you were talking about the sign on the building. MR. STROUGH-No. I’m talking about the sign out in front. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. HILTON-I guess the only thing, in terms of the signage, that I’m thinking is, if the applicant were to exceed what the Code calls for, that would have to be a Sign Variance that would be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The only thing, the only concern I guess I have is that I’d like to see the site plan reflect Code in the sense that you don’t want to have two freestanding signs out there with landscaping shifted to other areas, and then if the Zoning Board doesn’t approve those signs, you’d have voids where the sign was supposed to go. I guess I’d like to see the site plan designed, like you said, as if it were to meet Code, with the understanding that the Sign Variances would take place at a later point in time. I don’t know if you understand what I’m saying. MR. STROUGH-And I’d go along with you, George, on that. MR. LOTHIAN-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to just address one of your recap issues regarding the berm on the west side of the site, you mentioned. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LOTHIAN-That’s the rear of the site. Right now there’s a drop off. It just drops off, the grade difference between the Wal-Mart drive aisle in the back there and this is probably around, I’d guess around six feet. So there’s no ability for us to berm that. We’ll certainly landscape, providing additional landscaping, but you mentioned a berm on the west. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what I said was landscaping with berming and/or fencing. We want to see you address that satisfactorily. MR. STROUGH-Just do your best job. MR. LOTHIAN-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we’re looking for. If berming is a way for you to go, and you can do it, do it. If fencing is what you’ve got to do, then do it, and enhance the landscaping on it. We’re trying to give you some alternates here. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. LOTHIAN-Okay. Understood. The limitations back there are the fact that we have utilities, underground electric and what not, but we’re going to do our best to mitigate the issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. George, anything else? MR. RINGER-Do we want to see a traffic study done on a Saturday, or do we want to forget that? MR. STROUGH-They did do a traffic study on a Saturday. I was quoting the figures, Saturday peak hours, existing, 714 entering, 657 existing, proposed, 540, of course based on ITE. MR. RINGER-This is the one that they did in August. MR. STROUGH-Yes, August 13. th MR. RINGER-Okay. All right. MR. STROUGH-And the Wilton numbers are in here, too. Wilton. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe for the time being we’ll let that one go as it is, because I think they’re still a long ways from satisfying DOT. MR. RINGER-The problem is, if we don’t do it and DOT is satisfied, and they come back, and they’re ready for approval, and then we’ve delayed it another month, but if they’ve got one in August, I don’t think we need another one then. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s your thoughts on that? MR. HILTON-I mean, certainly if they’ve done some analysis, it would be nice to provide it for the Board’s review and C.T. Male’s review and Staff’s review anyway. MR. MAC EWAN-I know that in our July meeting, we had talked about the possibility of an independent traffic analysis, and my notes here say C.T. Male, Creighton Manning, Larry Levine. Did we decide to let that not move forward or what? MR. STROUGH-Has C.T. Male reviewed the traffic analysis? MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male doesn’t have their own on staff traffic engineer, I don’t think. MR. STROUGH-They don’t? MR. HILTON-To some extent they have. I think if you look at their letter of the 15, their last th statement says the traffic memorandum should be copied to New York State DOT for their review and concurrence. They’ve provided some comment. I think they’re also relying on New York State DOT. That’s my impression. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. SANFORD-I’m not as concerned about the traffic on this site as I have been with some other projects because before when there was the Ames, as well as the Wal-Mart, and as well as the diner, I mean, cumulatively, I’m not sure if this is going to be much greater of a traffic impact with the super Wal-Mart. MR. RINGER-There won’t be more traffic into the stores, but there’s more traffic on Route 9 than was there when the Ames or the Zayres and the P & C and all the others that were there in the total complex. MR. SANFORD-Right. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) MR. RINGER-A sewing machine shop there, and a fabric shop, there were several stores. MR. MAC EWAN-Sysco used to be there. MR. RINGER-So there won’t be anymore traffic into the site, but the traffic along Route 9 has increased substantially, since all those businesses have gone out. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally, I asked a lot of questions about traffic at the last meeting, and I had some real concerns about it, and in my mind I think the applicant’s done a pretty good job of addressing those concerns. My big contention was that the traffic analysis was using almost entirely projected numbers, and then they went out and verified with quantitative real numbers that backed up the assertions they made at the last meeting. So, I think if we get a DOT signoff and C.T. Male looking at it again still, I think, in my mind, you know, I think we’re on the right path. I don’t know what else we could ask them. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’ll concur with Chris on that. The only other note I want to make, though, is, I see that in the western area we’re using White Pine. Now White Pine as it matures, you know, is going to get unwieldy. The lower limbs aren’t going to do what they did when they were younger. I probably would refrain from using White Pine as a buffering agent. MR. SANFORD-How about spruce, John? MR. STROUGH-Spruce or something else. MR. SANFORD-Spruce works. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s along the residential areas? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-I guess, I don’t know if you have any other outstanding issues from the public, but I have nothing more. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to go through these 11 items one more time. We’ll table it and we’ll take it from there. Anything else to add? Okay. I’ll make a motion to table it, seeing as how I’ve got all the notes in front of me. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 WAL-MART STORES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. For revised parking requirements to meet the 10% in the Code, revise the landscaping for the diner area, which is now parking, will become landscaped green space area. 2. Traffic, under traffic, the signage to be revised for truck deliveries routing through the site, and also getting a New York State DOT signoff on traffic, also preventing the trucks from getting out onto Weeks Road, signage for that too. 3. The Route 9 design standards for landscaping along Route 9, inclusive of a pedestrian walkway. 4. Under lighting, submit a plan for 20 foot high poles with 400 watt fixtures. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) 5. Research and provide information for alternative noise reduction material for the unloading areas. 6. Address CT Male’s comments satisfactorily in their letter of 9/15 and get a CT Male signoff. 7. Revise the building signage and building hues to green colors, versus the blues as illustrated on the plans. Also enhance the entrances with more architectural detailing, and remove or reduce the additional signage on the building. 8. The residential property lines enhance landscaping with fencing and more landscaping. As far as species, replace the pines as illustrated on the plans by use of spruce. 9. The road sign for the Wal-Mart is to meet the Town Code. 10. Staff to investigate the grease trap issue, and get the applicant a copy of tonight’s minutes. Duly adopted this 18 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. STROUGH-And how about having the store manager here at the next meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to talk to Staff about that. I think that’s something we should do, maybe, on the side, as a neighborhood community type thing. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, with regards to the green, one of your notes was green signage, changing it to green signage? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I said the building. MR. HENTSCHKE-Are you referring to accent colors rather than signage? MR. MAC EWAN-Instead of Wal-Mart blue, Wal-Mart green. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Aren’t we asking for the roofing and the canopies to be green instead of blue? We said green signage. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and building hues. MR. HILTON-I guess I want to clarify. I mean, I interpreted it to be the siding, the accent colors, but are you also looking for that area behind the Wal-Mart sign that is currently shown blue to be green? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, all of it. MR. HILTON-All right. MR. STROUGH-No blue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do we have a second? MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/18/03) ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t table it to a specific meeting. Obviously, deadline for November is what we’re looking at right now to get on November agenda would be October the 15. We’ll th do the same thing. We’ll have a Special Meeting for you. Okay. Thank you. Any other business? Meeting’s adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 30