Loading...
2004-03-23 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23, 2004 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CHRIS HUNSINGER, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO THOMAS SEGULJIC RICHARD SANFORD GRETCHEN STEFFAN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE PREVIOUS SEQR JEFFREY INGLEE AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-5A LOCATION: TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF AN 8.62 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 5.09 AND 3.53 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 13-2001, AV 53- 2003 TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-39 LOT SIZE: 8.62 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MR. MAC EWAN-Just an announcement that the variance that was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals back in I believe it was June for this subdivision, for giving an Area Variance to, that the APA has overturned that ruling. So as far as our review of this application goes, it’s a dead review at this time. The application’s pretty much a moot point. SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10A, APA LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES OF LAND – 11.16 ACRES AND ACRES & 4.88 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WITH THE BALANCE IN LAKE LUZERNE – INTO FIVE (5) LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES EACH. PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE SEQR FINDINGS AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/03 APA/CEA TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 MR. MAC EWAN-Additionally, we will not be hearing this application tonight. We are going to do a Lead Agency Status resolution for SEQRA review. The proper posting for the application to be heard tonight was not posted on the property. So what we’re going to do is not open up the public hearing. It will be re-advertised. A sign will be posted, and we will hear this application at our first regular meeting in April which is the 20. Any other comments th from Board members? MR. SANFORD-On that? Yes. One quick question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. That’s the parcel of land that’s half in Luzerne and half, or part of it’s in Luzerne and part of it’s in Queensbury, and I was just wondering if Staff or you or anybody could clarify whether or not we look to 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) Queensbury alone or we look to Queensbury and Luzerne, in other words, the property that he owns, because I believe that there’s 10 acres, 10 acres in Queensbury that we’re concerned with, or 10 acres independent of whether it’s Queensbury and Luzerne? MS. RADNER-For SEQRA purposes you have to consider both. For the planning issues you can certainly be cognizant of the fact that part of the land goes into Luzerne, but your primary focus is on the Town of Queensbury Code provisions in regards to site plan criteria. They need the variance because you’ve only got five acres in the Queensbury side of things, but yet you can take, for example, the ZBA, in determining whether or not to grant the variance, can be mindful of the fact that there’s additional acreage in Luzerne and for SEQRA purposes you clearly consider both. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That’s all I had. MR. VOLLARO-I just have one question along those lines. How has that property been taxed all along? It’s been taxed on its less than five acre base, I would assume. MS. RADNER-They get a tax bill from Luzerne for the land in Luzerne. They get a tax bill from Queensbury for the land that’s in Queensbury, and they’ll continue to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay, but the land in Queensbury is less than the five acres. MR. SANFORD-No, it hasn’t been subdivided yet. MR. VOLLARO-If you look at the land in Queensbury, the property line. MR. HILTON-As part of the proposed subdivision, it’s less than 10 acres, the land. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just for clarification. I understand that there’s additional information that you’re going to be looking for for the applicant to provide. I don’t know if you want to state. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. Pursuant to the request of the Planning Board, the applicant should resubmit another plat by close of business on 4/2, with the plat showing two foot contours, and he is to re-post the notice sign on the property, and obviously I guess it would be incumbent upon the applicant to foot the charges for the re-advertisement in the paper. Does someone want to move a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO ACCEPT LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a Subdivision application for a proposed five (5) lot subdivision located on Cormus Road, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Unlisted action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, and 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its acceptance of Lead Agency Status for SEQRA review of this action in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such acceptance. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 SEQR TYPE II IAN ROWLANDSON AGENT: JAMES MOONEY ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND REPLACE WITH NEW 2,008 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CONDITION OF ZBA APPROVAL, AV 77-03. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 77-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 11/12/03 APA/CEA TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-14 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JAMES MOONEY, PAT MITCHELL, & ROBERT FLANSBURG, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-I’ll just summarize. Since the item was tabled last, the applicant has submitted information. The site statistics have been updated. The applicant prepared a stormwater plan, which has been forwarded to C.T. Male. C.T. Male has provided comments. Those comments, I believe, indicate that C.T. Male has visited the site and had conversations with Warren County Soil & Water regarding this project. Also, in regards to the tabling motion, you mentioned some kind of New York State DOH, I don’t know, comment on this, and typically what happens is the Department of Health looks at subdivisions, if they’re new and if they’re five lots or greater. They typically wouldn’t have any kind of review over this type of project. In terms of the septic and the design along those lines, our Building and Codes Department would review those items at the time of building permit. I think that’s the bulk of, you know, what they were sent away and what they were supposed to provide, and those are the comments I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. MOONEY-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, we are? MR. MITCHELL-For the record, I am Pat Mitchell, North Country Engineering. MR. MOONEY-I’m James Mooney, agent for Mr. Rowlandson. MR. FLANSBURG-And I am Robert Flansburg, Dreamscapes Unlimited, the designer of the residence. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Who wants to be the spokesman for the group? MR. MITCHELL-I will be. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tell us about your project. MR. MITCHELL-Okay. We’re developing a site plan/septic system for Ian Rowlandson. We’ve been here once before. I have not received comments from the Town for our last submission. I received comments from the Town engineer, but I didn’t receive anything from the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the letter dated March 19? th MR. VOLLARO-The C.T. Male letter is March 19. th MR. MITCHELL-Yes, March 19. th MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to go through that letter? MR. MITCHELL-Sure. Basically, the letter states what Jim Houston found on his trip up to the site, and he’s asking to add some area to our watershed to show how much more area goes in to the 15 inch pipe across our site, and also to add erosion control to our plan. I have done that. I have not gotten it back to the Town because I didn’t get comments back until Friday. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. MITCHELL-Not at this time, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anybody got any questions relative to, I guess pretty much we can focus our attention I think at this point on the stormwater because that seemed to be the biggest issue hanging out there. Right? MR. MITCHELL-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members relative to that? MR. VOLLARO-Relative to stormwater, I haven’t read Mr. Houston’s letter yet and it looks like there’s a significant amount that has to be added to the plan that has to do with stormwater control. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the stormwater controls, what you’re proposing is this retention basin? MR. MITCHELL-No, we’re not any longer. The last time we were at the meeting the department of soils and water asked us to put a retention basin in. I updated our drawings, did a new stormwater model with the basin in, and when we submitted it, Jim Houston asked us to take it back out. MR. SEGULJIC-Now this is the drawing of 10/14/03, then? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, and the comment in the letter from Jim Houston asked us to take that back out. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I haven’t seen that letter, then. MR. MITCHELL-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So what are you proposing for the stormwater? MR. MITCHELL-We’re going to leave the pipe just as it is. We’re going to do erosion control, silt fencing during construction. The only reason we put the pond in is because the Planning Board asked us to do it the last time. We didn’t see a need for the ponds to begin with. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. SEGULJIC-So the stream will just continue across it? MR. MITCHELL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, is that an intermittent stream? MR. MITCHELL-It’s classified as an intermittent stream, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Where does it stand? Are you going to go back to C.T. Male with a revised approach to this and they have to then get back to you? I mean, is that where we are? MR. MITCHELL-Apparently yes. I mean, he’s considerably changed our stormwater model by asking us to take the pond out. I have re-run calculations, and the pipe is still fine at 15 inches. I was hoping we could get this approved contingent upon those changes. We’ve been going through this since November. We’re trying to get the building up as soon as possible. MR. VOLLARO-As one Board member, I can’t comment until I’ve digested that letter from C.T. Male and taken a look at the new scope and see where we are and I’m not comfortable even going forward with it. I have some other comments, but in the stormwater area, I’m going to have to pass. I’m not comfortable until I have a chance to see what C.T. Male has to say. MR. SANFORD-I mean, I just got this letter from today’s mail. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, me, too. I just got it. So I didn’t have a chance to read it. MR. MITCHELL-I submitted drawings six weeks ago, and I got comments back Friday. MR. FLANSBURG-It was an issue of putting a pond in, if I may. I think the TR-55 stormwater run off calc’s would indicate that, you know, no storage is necessary for the drainage on this site, and believe that we were asked to put the pond in. The pond was put in, and we were asked to take the pond out. The pipe is sufficient to handle the drainage through the site. So with the expense and the time and the effort and energy put into this, and six weeks from submission we got comments back on Friday, it’s a residential, it’s a small residential site. It meets the setbacks. It meets the area. We’re not looking for any Area Variance. We’re not looking for any relief. This issue on this, this drainage issue is the issue, it would seem, and the amount of, the improvement with an on-site septic, with the upgrade of the septic system and all that, there’s not any additional runoff generated on this site but what can be handled on this site. The runoff that we’re channeling through this pipe is not even generated on this site, or as a result of the efforts, the construction on this site. So it would seem that this has all been for nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, just so that the record is clear, what’s transpired here over the last several weeks and the public understands, is that the site improvements you made up there were without this Board’s approval. You’re dealing with State SEQRA law. You’re dealing with a Critical Environmental Area. You’ve created detention ponds and put in piping and such like that that would have required this Board’s review and approval prior to doing that. That’s why we’re hung up. Okay, now that the record’s clear, how things happened. MR. MITCHELL-I believe our client did, he did a permit to put that pipe in. At the time they weren’t asked to go through site plan review. They did get a permit to put it in. We did not build any ponds or anything on the site. All we did was connect a pipe that came in to our property to a pipe going out of our property. MR. VOLLARO-If I look back, the last time C.T. Male reviewed this was November 19, 2003, and I have the C.T. Male review in front of me. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. FLANSBURG-Yes, I have that right here. MR. VOLLARO-It was for this reason that when we tabled this, if my memory serves me correctly, when we tabled this, we said this was a fairly complex issue that we were looking at, and we wanted C.T. Male to actually go up and see the site. Most of the time he does his analysis on paper like we all do. We, the Planning Board, go look at the site, but I wanted an engineering hard look at that site, and the result of his visit is his recent memorandum. So there’s where the shift has taken place. After he got to look at it, he had a whole other view. MR. MITCHELL-Right, and like you said, that letter was issued in November. He went and looked at the site nine days ago. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing I can tell you, Mr. Mitchell, is we try to move things through as expeditiously as possible. You aren’t the only applicant that’s on our agendas, and right now we’re running an average of about three and a half meetings a month. So our agendas are quite loaded down, and sometimes, you know, unfortunately Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it just takes time to do the engineering and make sure that everything is adequate to everyone’s satisfaction. Any other questions relative to stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-No. I just have one relative to the Floor Area Ratio worksheet, but other than that, I don’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going back a little way to the drawing that you submitted back in our last meeting of the house itself. MR. MITCHELL-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And taking a look at your Floor Area worksheet, it seems to me that when I take a look at your print, I get a first floor a print readout on the first floor of 1425 square feet. The proposed second floor is 1120. This is on new build, now, we’re talking about, the new building. So I get a total Floor Area of 2545. MR. FLANSBURG-That’s been revised since then. MR. VOLLARO-Because, well, see these are the only set of plans that I have to go on are the plans that you submitted of the building itself I’m talking about now, not, looking at your site plan, and if you scale that off, it’s a little bit different, but when I look at the last drawing that you gave of the building itself, translate those numbers into square footage, I come up with a different number than you do. So I said the, what I came up with was the over allowable area is 73 square feet. Now I’m doing that based on your prints. If those prints are different, then you’ve got to give me another set of prints for the building. Otherwise you can’t do the numbers. MR. FLANSBURG-That was dated in November, is that right? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll give you the date of your drawing if you want. Well, it’s a drawing with no date, but it was submitted for the November review, I believe. There’s no dates on any of these architecturals at all. No, there isn’t any dates on the drawings whatsoever, but, see, I don’t have to scale off, because these drawings have hard dimensions on them. So it’s kind of easy for me to pick the numbers off. Scaling off your drawing is a little bit different. MR. FLANSBURG-The footprint was revised, at some point in time since that November submission. The areas that are indicated on the current floor area worksheet, in other words the 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) first floor being 1380, the second floor being 1,092 square feet, for a total of 2472 would be the correct numbers. We’d be prepared to submit revised drawings. MR. VOLLARO-You know, what impressed me with that is your parcel area is 11,238, and 22% is exactly 2472. You’re right on the money. MR. FLANSBURG-That’s exactly right. MR. VOLLARO-You designed that thing right to the last, it’s almost impossible to do. MR. FLANSBURG-That’s called luck. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not luck. MR. FLANSBURG-No, that was by design. That’s the honest truth. We’ve got the flexibility with a new build, and how we achieved that, just for the record, is the footprint, you know for 64 square feet, largely, which is on the second floor, one of the bedrooms measured 17 feet. Fifteen works just fine, and there would be no need for an Area Variance. It’s kind of nonsensical to even look at going for an additional 64 feet, which on the second floor wasn’t needed. I think that, initially when those were submitted, you know, those were thought through but they were at preliminary, and the owner needed to look at some of these issues. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, until I get a, if you’re going to be coming back anyway, it looks like to me, get the Floor Area worksheet worked up so that it at least matches some print, or it matches what you’ve got. MR. FLANSBURG-The prints would match the Floor Area worksheet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because when I do my review, you know, I’m doing it all by myself, on a dining room table with prints all over, and I don’t have anybody to talk to. So I’ve got to come up with my own numbers, and I couldn’t make it right. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically, looking through C.T. Male’s letter, it’s basically on Page Two, Paragraph Three, Paragraph Five is what they’re really looking for attention to be paid to. MR. FLANSBURG-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How long would it take you to get that done? MR. MITCHELL-It is all done. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s all done as we speak? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, it is. It’s on these plans right in front of me. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you sent them to C.T. Male for their review? MR. MITCHELL-I finished them about six o’clock this evening. I have not sent them out. MR. MAC EWAN-So I guess you haven’t then. Okay. Typically, just so I know, internally, how you work. They submit to you and you guys send it to C.T. Male, or do they send it to C.T. Male directly? MR. HILTON-In a case like this where there’s an active project, it can go either way. They can go directly to C.T. Male. That’s fine. Either way. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d rather have it channeled through your office, just for tracking purposes. Any other questions the Board has relative to this application? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. VOLLARO-Not now, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I just had a comment on the plans, regarding the wastewater system. I had spoken with Mr. Mitchell about this. I had questions about the existing foundation and what would be removed, and whether fill would be required for the system, and if there would be any specifications on that system, to be brought in, and that’s all I had. Thank you. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just for your information, Mr. Navitsky did submit a letter that we have in the file. Basically stating what he just stated. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone else? Do you gentlemen want to come back up? We’ll leave the public hearing open. Do you have an answer for him on that? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. MITCHELL-As far as the question from Chris from the Water Keeper, there is no fill required for the system. It’s a gravel system. It’s just into the existing ground. So there’s no fill required here. So I don’t think that’s a concern. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. One last shot. MR. MITCHELL-There are details for the septic system on our plans. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe there was a question about the existing foundation. MR. MITCHELL-It’s in the vicinity of the existing foundation, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Is the existing foundation going to be removed, then? MR. MITCHELL-Yes, it will. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-This is an entirely new build. Correct? MR. MITCHELL-Right. Well, we’re taking out an old building and putting in a new building. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s in a different footprint, a different area. MR. MITCHELL-Right. It’s in a different area. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. MITCHELL-I’m sure we’re going to be moving some of that native soil around from one hole to another, but it’s all going to be soil right off that site. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? Staff? Does someone want to introduce a motion to table, please? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll make the motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 50-2003 IAN ROWLANDSON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: We’re going to table it to the first meeting in April 20, and information to Staff by April 2, 2004. th Specifically addressing C.T. Male’s letter of March 19, and revise their plans and submissions th accordingly. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. FLANSBURG-Can I ask one last question, just for clarity? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. FLANSBURG-As far the items needed for that submission, obviously C.T. Male’s comments would be addressed, and Mr. Vollaro, you had asked for revised architectural drawings. Is that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, the drawings that have been submitted the last time showed the building itself, and, I don’t know, do you recognize those? MR. FLANSBURG-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just update those so that they match your print, and so when I do my little jig, I’ve got the right numbers. MR. FLANSBURG-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-And we gave them until April 2 to do their submittals. Right? nd MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And that’s helping you out to get on our April agenda, which you’ve already missed the deadline for. So we’re granting you a little extension. MR. MITCHELL-I will get these right out tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-Just a word to the wise, if we haven’t received them by close of business April the 2, you will not be on the April agenda. nd MR. MITCHELL-I will get them out the door tomorrow. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. MITCHELL-Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) SITE PLAN NO. 25-2003 SEQRA TYPE I WAL-MART STORES PROPERTY OWNER: WAL-MART STORES, INC. & NAT. REALTY AGENT: NEAL MADDEN, ESQ.; JOHN SPEER ZONE: HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9 AND WEEKS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF EXISTING WAL-MART STORE BY CONSTRUCTING A 95,217 SQ. FT. BUILDING ADDITION FOR A TOTAL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 216,080. PLANNING BOARD MAY ISSUE A SEQR DETERMINATION AT THIS MEETING. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 5-90, SV 49-95, UV 32- 92, SV 55-94, SV 57, 58-93, AV 11-93, SB 3-93, SP 31-93, SP 31-93, AV 38-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-36, 37 LOT SIZE: 11.29 ACRES, 6.46 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 PETER HENTSCHKE & GIRARD FITAMANT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just really quickly. The applicant has submitted a revised lighting plan which shows the floodlights being removed from the plan. As a result the building exterior lighting levels appear to be consistent with the Town Code. The applicant has submitted language for the proposed interconnect, vehicular interconnect. Easement language, as well, for the noise, construction of the noise wall on the western property line, and has submitted additional noise information concerning the noise wall and rooftop units, which has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their comments. C.T. Male has provided their comments, and that’s where we are at this point. That’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you referring to the March 5 C.T. Male comments? th MR. HILTON-Yes, I am. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself from this item. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Where did we leave off? Lighting. Sound. We added more sound information we asked for. We got it. Does anybody have any questions relative to sound? Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-I have something for lighting. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone’s comfortable with sound? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had sort of a comment on the sound analysis. It was recommended by C.T. Male that sound readings be taken after the project is finished, and I guess my only comment on that was, if there is a spike in noise, how would we be able to tell where it’s generated, and I know, from going through sound analysis with The Great Escape in the past, that a lot of the noise that was being achieved in certain neighborhoods was really the background noise from highways and stuff like that. So I guess it’s really not a question of the applicant. It’s really a question from C.T. Male’s comments. I don’t know if you can address that or not. MR. HENTSCHKE-My name is Peter Hentschke. I’m here on behalf of Wal-Mart. I’m from the firm of Harter, Seacrest and Emery, and just to take a quick moment, we’ve got, with me tonight I’ve got Paul Silvestri, also of our firm, Girard Fitamant of Langan Engineering Environmental Services, and Lewis Goodfriend, a noise expert from Lewis Goodfriend and Associates is here as well. The one thing I wanted to say about the comment about doing future noise studies is that we think that it’s just, it’s not justified and there’s no practical reason and no reasonable basis to ask us to do that. If there’s a question about, I just wasn’t quite sure what that question 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) was about that Mr. Hunsinger, what was the question about whether we could tell, or perhaps we could have our noise expert, Lewis, you know, address that question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, maybe he could address that comment. When I read the comment from C.T. Male about, well, they said that, once the site work and wall are complete, we would agree that the Town has the right to request Wal-Mart to measure levels during both daytime and nighttime operating hours to confirm the projections in the report by Goodfriend, in terms of nighttime leq of 45 db. This is likely well below the existing sound levels, and would not realistically be achieved by a noise barrier, and my thought was, if noise is measured post development, how would we be able to determine the source. I mean, you know, because noise might be greater now, or two years from now, than it is today, how do we determine whether or not it’s attributable to Wal-Mart or some other event that has occurred? LEWIS GOODFRIEND MR. GOODFRIEND-It’s difficult. It’s extremely difficult to determine the source of a noise, if it’s mixed in with the ambient, one of the ways, which may not be practical, is to turn off the noise sources that are involved, which, for Wal-Mart, might be difficult. It would require shutting down all the air conditioning, all the compressors, and shutting down the trucks would be easy, or moving would be, for a short period of time, would be relatively easy compared to shutting down the rest of the plant, but other than that, there is no easy way to identify sources, unless they have certain characteristics. If they’re tonal or if they’re, have impacts, that pretty well identifies them, but I don’t expect any tonal noise sources or impact noise sources involved with the Wal-Mart project. So the only way would be to shut down some suspected noise source. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the other question that I sort of had was, at the last meeting, we had talked about some spec sheets on the air conditioning units, and I didn’t recall if that was in our revised package. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, you had a question on sound? MR. VOLLARO-No. I have no question on sound. I went along with Mr. Goodfriend’s letter, and I looked at both letters, read them carefully, and I think that Mr. Goodfriend’s letter answers the questions, having a now 14 foot, essentially, four foot berm and a ten foot wall. I think that’s about maximum for that site. I just don’t see any problem. I’m happy with that. As far as sound is concerned, I don’t have any questions, actually. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-Lighting I do. MR. MAC EWAN-Go. MR. VOLLARO-I took a look at, I like everything on the site. The fact that you’ve taken down the spots, that did a lot. I can tell you that, between the two entrances, though, if you do a, what I did is I picked up 10 plots in the lights, and I came out with the northern entrance having an average of 1.5 foot candles, and the southern entrance having 3.2. I was just wondering, we’ve got a disparity there of illumination. We’re not essentially, you know, equal, and if there’s a reason for that fine, there might be. There might not be. I went up there yesterday to look. There is no light there now, and yet on the revised plan, it shows a light at the southern entrance which brings, now, there’s no place that you’ll find 3.2, but I can give you all the plots I 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) picked to get that, okay. I picked plots right off your drawing, 1.6, 1.5, 1.2, etc., etc., and I came up with a total of 43 divided by 13 plots I picked up, which gives me an average of 3.2. Did the same thing on the northern entrance, and got an average of 1.5, and I was just wondering whether you would like to have that symmetrical or not. I’m not going to make a big issue out of it, but I thought it would be nice for you to have a symmetrical lighting plan at your entrances. If not, I’m not going to argue with you. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that something that can be easily obtained by just changing the wattage in that particular fixture? MR. FITAMANT-We’ve gone over the site and the entrances and chosen to maximize the distribution of the lighting, at this point. MR. VOLLARO-The southern entrance is the larger piece of land. MR. FITAMANT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That I can tell you. MR. FITAMANT-And at this point there’s only one double fixture, and to me, just looking at it, as a response, can we make it any better, I don’t see, if we put it over here, then we’ll have a dark spot here. If we move it over here, then we’ll have a bright spot here, and a dark spot here. As far as it’s location, it’s optimized, and we don’t have a concern with a difference between the two entrances. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. This was more for you than for me. MR. FITAMANT-Okay. I appreciate the. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I wanted to see whether you have a balanced lighting plan at both. I’m not going to make an issue of it. I congratulate you on taking out the spots. That did it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it did for me as well. Any other questions relative to lighting? MR. SANFORD-No. I left my material home, but what I believe I reviewed was that, following our last meeting, you reconsidered and took off the lights on the building, and basically, I mean, just maybe getting a little bit out in front, I think that the applicant has worked well with us for a long period of time, and I’m, at this point in time, pretty pleased with where this project, where it is right now. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d echo that sentiment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, me, too. I think we did a good job, collectively, I think we’re going to have a good site here. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions relative to vehicle access, traffic patterns, emergency access? I think most everything we’ve gotten battened down here. Landscaping. Neighborhood character. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe I’ll get my comment in on neighborhood character. It’s pretty close. I’m not going to break out the print, but there’s a note on Drawing 20.01 with the latest date of it is 2/26/04. This was a comment on Wal-Mart will construct the intersection with the adjacent landowner, the interconnection. I’d like that to be a little more specific. If you would read the comment, the note on there, then I’ll tell you what I think ought to be done with it. MR. HENTSCHKE-While he’s getting the site plan out, just to update the Board on the progress of the easements, including the interconnect with Ray Supply, we’ve essentially ironed out all 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) the details. We just have to agree on all the substantive terms, just here tonight, and I think both sides are pretty happy. We have to get it approved by Wal-Mart, of course. MR. MAC EWAN-Can that be done before next Tuesday? MR. HENTSCHKE-I think very good chance. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-All right. The chance that you’d come up with that, I can break mine out, if you don’t have it. MR. FITAMANT-No. We have Drawing 20.01, with the note that states that a 15 foot wide one way driveway from Ray Supply property to Wal-Mart property, topographic surveys are required prior to detailed design, but there again, as Peter indicated, there’s much more detail than that note. There’s an actual easement agreement. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but the way I’d like to see that, and I don’t know if the Board would agree with that, is to say that Wal-Mart will construct the interconnection with the adjacent landowner (Ray Supply) in accordance with the fully executed interconnection easement between Wal-Mart and Ray Supply. MR. FITAMANT-We will make that revision to the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good deal. Any other questions or comments? MR. VOLLARO-I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add, Peter? MR. HENTSCHKE-No, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We left the public hearing open. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DANIEL OLSON MR. OLSON-Good evening. Daniel Olson, 29 Carlton Drive, Town of Queensbury. My wife couldn’t make the meeting this evening. So I’m here representing both of us. Our main concern I feel that it was satisfied in other meetings, but I just wanted to make sure tonight that the our main concerns was the truck traffic, delivery trucks, I think I would call those, truck traffic entering the property was relocated to the other side of the project. Is that correct? MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct. MR. OLSON-We appreciate that, and as I said, my wife and I appreciate the input that you’ve allowed us to put into this, along with other people in the neighborhood, and we feel more comfortable that you have before you now. The traffic, the delivery trucks moved to the other side, a reduction in the noise of, the cleaning of the parking lot, and the times of cleaning of the parking lot, and also the Good Neighbor policy that Wal-Mart came up with for the neighbors in the neighborhood. We feel more confident that we’ll be able to have contact with the store directly when we have a particular problem, and not have to wait for weeks or months. That’s all I wanted to make clear and put on the table that, as long as these conditions are still the way we thought they were in the past and accepted, we would be satisfied. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it has. It’s been an ongoing process, but that would be all part of conditional approval, that all these things that we agreed to would be made part of the approval process. MR. OLSON-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? DAVID VALENTE MR. VALENTE-David Valente, Whispering Pines. I just have a couple of brief comments. First and foremost, I would like to thank the Wal-Mart group for extending the consideration to the sound barrier wall, in assisting Whispering Pines’ needs related to noise, and the efforts made by this Board providing these very important improvements. Just a couple of quick comments. The C.T. Male letter I had reviewed made mention of the break in the wall, and the concern was of the study provided by. MR. MAC EWAN-Bullet Item Three you’re referring to? MR. VALENTE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VALENTE-And my only concern was that 25 foot. I just was unclear on the 25 foot break, and the purpose for the break, and was there any consideration given beyond the break, or beyond that reasoning, to help eliminate the break, and whether those issues were expanded upon in any way by this Board, and the only other comment was (lost words) site plan identifying the sound barrier wall and the retaining wall information, if they would also provide (lost words) sound barrier wall (lost words) I’d appreciate that. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Just a quick answer to your question. That 25 foot gap, we’ll have the applicant expound on it a little bit, but I think that’s relative to a Niagara Mohawk substation that’s there, and that’s the right of way, and you can’t build through their right of way. Anyone else? MR. VALENTE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. GEORGE GOETZ MR. GOETZ-I’m George Goetz with Ray Supply, and I just want to thank Wal-Mart for understanding our concerns about the potential traffic problems, but I particularly wish to express our thanks to the Planning Board. It’s amazing to us how you’re able to understand all the different situations, and ask the questions you do, and formulate the decisions. You’re a real compliment to the Town. Thank you very much for help. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re very welcome, and thank you. Anyone else? Procedurally, the public hearing. We’re going to have the site plan next week. We need to do a SEQRA. Should I leave the public hearing open until next week and still do the SEQRA? Shall we close the public hearing and do the SEQRA, and then, I don’t anticipate anything next week, but because this is kind of like a segmented process. MS. RADNER-You can certainly leave the public hearing open, conduct your SEQRA. You can’t reopen and re-visit the SEQRA then once you’ve done it, but you could limit yourself to the site plan issues next week. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine. Then we’ll leave the public hearing open. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HENTSCHKE-Could I just state a comment. I think we’ve had about seven or eight public hearings, and it seems to me like everybody’s done a great job identifying things and analyzing them at length and we’re just concerned that some stuff’s going to be dropped at the last minute and it’s going to prolong things. MR. MAC EWAN-No, no. We’re going to do the SEQRA tonight, but because this review has been phased, so to speak, because we still have the site plan to do next week, I mean, all up to this point, even though we’ve been doing everything, discussion relative to the site plan itself, the mission, tonight, is to complete the SEQRA review, so that you can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and hopefully get your variances that you’re trying to obtain. Then we’ll hear the site plan next week, which we’ve actually already heard 99.9% of it. We’ll act on it next week, I’m sure, but, procedurally, I just don’t understand how we could close the public hearing when we still have action that’s pending in front of this Board relative to this application. MR. HENTSCHKE-I think you have the power to do that, if you want to. MS. RADNER-The risk, then, is that you are time limited as to when you have to make your decision, and for example we lost one meeting this month because of an unexpected weather condition. You may not wish to limit yourself in that way. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t anticipate any hurdles. I think at this point I’ll just leave the public hearing open, and we’ll close it next Tuesday when we revisit this application. I think that would be the best thing to do. It would be a safety net, if nothing else. All right, Chris, we need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-And of course it’s the Long Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?” MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’ll be a physical change, but it’ll be mitigated by. MR. MAC EWAN-Site plan. MR. VOLLARO-The site plan that’s been presented. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone comfortable with that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It’s being mitigated through the site development. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. “Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-There was, but they’re being mitigated through the project development. MS. RADNER-For Number One, you never indicated whether it was a small to moderate or a potentially large. MR. MAC EWAN-Small to moderate, we did say. MS. RADNER-Okay. I’m sorry, and then, I’m sorry, interrupted on Twenty. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-On Twenty I said that there was, and it was small to moderate, and it’s being mitigated through the project’s design. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, actually, in this case it’s just yes or no. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s public controversy. It’s just yes or no. You’re talking about Number Twenty, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There isn’t any small to moderate or large impact. It’s just a yes or no answer for Twenty. MR. SANFORD-The answer’s no. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is no. MR. MAC EWAN-The Board agrees that the answer is no? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 25-2003, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WAL-MART STORES, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck tomorrow night. We’ll see you next Tuesday. MR. HENSTCHKE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN: SITE PLAN NO. 9-2004 SEQR TYPE II JANE MANN AGENT: FRANK DE NARDO LOCATION: 174 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES SITE EXCAVATION AND REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING DOCK IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DOCK ALONG WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 38’ X 38’ BOAHOUSE/SUNDECK. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR FILL/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A SHORELINE, AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BOATHOUSES IN THE WR-1A ZONE. APA, CEA CROSS REFERENCE: NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.54 AC. SECTION: 179-4-020 FRANK DE NARDO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 9-2004, Jane Mann, Meeting Date: March 23, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 9-2004 APPLICANT: Jane Mann is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to excavate fill material and construct a new dock/sundeck. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 174 Lake Parkway. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no prior Planning Board or ZBA action related to this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes the removal of fill material previously deposited into Lake George, along with the removal of an existing dock and the construction of a 38 ft. x 38 ft. dock and covered boathouse. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - The proposed dock and boathouse appear to meet the dimensional and setback requirements listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff understands that the excavation re-establishment of the shoreline prior to filling is in response to the requirements of another agency with jurisdiction over the shoreline of Lake George. What type of erosion control methods will be used during the excavation of the filled material to re-establish the previous shoreline in order to minimize runoff into Lake George?” MR. MAC EWAN-Before we advance with this application, this was the one where we went up on Lake Parkway. There were some conversations whether we were at the right locale or not. Does the Board feel comfortable proceeding? MR. VOLLARO-Wasn’t that Harris we were looking at, that we couldn’t find? MR. MAC EWAN-No, Harris was on 9L. MR. VOLLARO-We couldn’t find Harris. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SANFORD-We’re talking about a dock here, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to construct a dock and boathouse. The applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading, lighting, and landscaping plans. Staff’s understanding is that the excavation of fill material, which is indicated as part of this plan, is reestablishing a shoreline, in response to the requirements of another jurisdiction, and I guess our question would be just what type of erosion control measures are going to be used and perhaps they could be reflected on the site plan, conditioned approval, if the Board is so inclined, that those erosion control methods be shown on the site plan. With that, this went to Warren County, and the County recommendation was No County Impact with the Stipulation, and the stipulation being that there be no land bridge, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. DE NARDO-Good evening. Frank DeNardo for Jane Mann. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us a little bit about the proposed project. MR. DE NARDO-Well, we’re going to basically remove an old filled area on the Mann’s property that was put in over many years, and establish a new dock there. There is an existing dock there we’re going to be removing, and basically it’s all in the plan right there in front of you, what it is. We will be providing silt fences up alongside that. It’s a boom silt fence, the excavation, and it’s also weighted on the bottom. So there would be very minimal stir up of the bottom of the lake. We’re pretty careful with that stuff. I do a lot of that with the local town fire departments, putting in their dry hydrants and stuff. So I’m pretty knowledgeable about the silt in the lake. MR. VOLLARO-This is when you’re excavating the existing material? MR. DE NARDO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. DE NARDO-I had one thing, as a clarification on the land bridge. What’s the definition of a land bridge from this Town Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Not so much this Board as it is Warren County. MR. DE NARDO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically Warren County does not approve land bridges. MR. DE NARDO-And a land bridge would be? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know if that’s been a change in philosophy in the last year or so with them or not. MR. DE NARDO-I can’t get a direct answer what a land bridge consists of. I mean, to me a land bridge is something that’s bridging something. A set of stairs coming down to the shoreline I don’t consider a land bridge. MR. MAC EWAN-Did Warren County condition this? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-About the land bridge? MR. DE NARDO-They always do. MR. HUNSINGER-They always do, even if it’s not in the plan, and I think that’s probably why you’re confused about it, because I didn’t, I mean, I’m certainly no expert in trying to interpret what the County’s looking for, but I would tend to agree with your assessment. MR. DE NARDO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-But I could be wrong. MR. MAC EWAN-It would take a super majority of this Board to, if we were to approve it with the land bridge, it would take a super majority to do it. Instead of four, it would take five votes to approve your project if you were to have the land bridge. Typically if the County has not approved it, which they typically do. Okay. Does anybody have questions relative to site development? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just have one, I guess. I’m looking at this plan, the plan itself, and it talked about the mean high water level equals the mean low water level. Now there’s a rise and fall in Lake George of 2.46 feet, up and down, and the mean high and the mean low are never the same. Never. Ever. MR. DE NARDO-If the mean high, and the mean low are at a seawall at that depth, if you have a depth of water of over three feet, at seawall, the mean high and the mean low are in the same area. When it’s (lost words) on the map. If this is a seawall right here, and you have three foot of water, all right, your mean high is at one point. Your mean low is at another, but on the map, it’s right here on this line. MR. VOLLARO-From a Birdseye view on the map it’s right there on that line? MR. DE NARDO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. It’s not this way. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. DE NARDO-It’s straight up and down. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, what I’m trying to get, this is a brand new dock going in. MR. DE NARDO-Brand new. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. A simple way of getting the mean high, simple, you can go to Lake George and get their little chart, but a simple way of doing this is to go halfway with them. Take a measurement stick, if you will, it’s got, a yardstick, it’s got measurements on it, and put a rubber band on it at their number. Take that out until that rubber band hits the water, and then find out, for that day how high above that is mean high. Mark that on the dock, and you’ve got a mean high. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-It’s kind of hard to do until you get the dock in position first, though, because you’ve got it on the plans already, and I said, that’s interesting, how could it get on the plans when the dock is not in position yet. MR. DE NARDO-Well, you can do that same calculation from the top of the water on that same day. If you take a measurement, no matter what day it is, you take the calculation from the Park Commission, on that day, on that given day, and you can measurement from the height of the water on a calm day, from the height of the water to your mean high. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but you have to have something to measure up to. Because you’re going to go from a spot on the dock up 14 or less. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So, somehow or other, you’ve got to be on that dock, so that you know you can get 14 or less up. You’ve got to put that mark on there some time, after the build, after you put the dock in, before you start the super structure. Because you’ve got it on there now, on the drawing. MR. DE NARDO-We actually do that during construction, while building the cribs. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I’m getting at. Right now, if I looked at the drawing now, it says I’ve already done it, and I said, that couldn’t very well be. You’ve got the mean high set on the drawing already. MR. DE NARDO-Right. MR. VOLLARO-After that crib is in, then you’ll set that mark. MR. DE NARDO-That mark, actually, that’ll be exactly where it is. What you see there is what you’re going to get, from the mean high. That’s not going to change. So everything from the mean high up is going to be from that point. MR. VOLLARO-Thirteen, eight. First you’ve got to get that mark. MR. DE NARDO-Right. MR. VOLLARO- As long as you understand how you got the mean high water, that’s all I’m concerned about. MR. DE NARDO-Yes. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. VOLLARO-You went to Lake George. You made the phone call, and you know how high it is. MR. DE NARDO-I believe the day is on there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you said it, 2003. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Located July 2003. MR. DE NARDO-And what we do, I mean, the Roger’s Rock reading never changes. So basically we do it, the day we’re setting the cribs, we do our calculations for our final courses on the cribs, and that’s where they’re set at, and it comes out exactly like that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you have to make the call to them, though. MR. DE NARDO-We call them every time we’re setting cribs. MR. VOLLARO-Every time you set cribs. Mr. Chairman, I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions regarding site development? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the area you’re going to excavate, where exactly is that? Is that the curled lines at the new dock? MR. DE NARDO-There’s a set of, I’m not certain if you have the old map there. MR. SEGULJIC-This right here. MR. DE NARDO-This section that’s coming out here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, that right there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’ve got that. MR. DE NARDO-That was filled in over about a 10 or 15 year span by Dr. Weiss, one rock at a time. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s almost like a jetty, then. MR. DE NARDO-What it is was, it was an old dock there at one time and Dr. Weiss was tired of rebuilding his old dock. So he said, well, let’s build it with stone. He had a bunch of stone brought in, and one rock at a time he put it in. One bucket at a time, he put it in, and the Park Commission says it’s an illegal filling. So it was stipulated by the Park Commission to put it there. We’re going to remove that section there. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to take all that out. MR. DE NARDO-All that out. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to put silt fences around that area. MR. DE NARDO-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. DE NARDO-It’s approximately about 70 yards of fill, and subsequently it’s all going to be used back in the crib, so, that rock there. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions on site development and design? Stormwater? Any other questions? Anything you wanted to add, Mr. DeNardo? MR. DE NARDO-No, unless anybody has any questions I can answer. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Well, we’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We do not need to do a SEQRA. Correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to move it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 9-2004 JANE MANN, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 9-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Jane Mann SEQR Type II Agent: Frank DeNardo Location: 174 Lake Parkway Applicant proposes site excavation and removal of an existing dock in order to construct a new dock along with the construction of a 38’ x 38’ boathouse/sundeck. Site Plan review and approval is required for fill/hard surfacing within 50 feet of a shoreline, and for the construction of boathouses in the WR-1A zone. APA, CEA Cross Reference: None Warren Co. Planning: 3/10/04 Tax Map No. 226.15-1-1 Lot size: 0.54 ac. / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: March 23, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/19/04, and 3/23 Staff Notes 3/19 CT Male Associates 3/16 Notice of Public Hearing 3/10 Warren Co. Planning: NCI w/stipulation 2/27 Meeting Notice 2/9 Applicant from LGPC 1/26 LGPC from C. Brown WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on March 23, 2004; and 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following condition which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The Final site plan to include erosion control and silt fencing to be used during shoreline excavation, and Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: rd MR. MAC EWAN-Should we have a note in there about erosion control measures? And he also asked for variances, too. Right? Waivers. MR. VOLLARO-Waiver requests were approved. MR. HILTON-Those should be in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Are they in the resolution? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought those were in the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s fine if they are. Is that fine? You don’t want the erosion control? MR. VOLLARO-It says it right on there. The final plan shall include erosion control and silt fencing to be used during shoreline excavations. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s right in the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I thought we were okay with that. MR. SANFORD-I’ll second it. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Frank. MR. DE NARDO-Have a good night. SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 SEQR TYPE II AFTAB BHATTI AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT THE HOTEL OFFICE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ECONO 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) LODGE ON AVIATION ROAD, AS WELL AS ALTERATIONS TO THE BUILDING EXTERIOR AND LIGHTING ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING HOTEL BUILDING AT THIS LOCATION. HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-2003, AV 19-04 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.12 LOT SIZE: 0.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT & DON DAVIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-2004, Aftab Bhatti, Meeting Date: March 23, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 12-2004 APPLICANT: Aftab Bhatti is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to rebuild the existing Econo Lodge hotel office, as well as enclose an existing exterior walkway, and replace several outside light fixtures. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 543 Aviation Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II action. No further Planning Board action is required. PARCEL HISTORY: The Planning Board approved SP 20-2003 for the construction of an additional hotel building on this property on April 22, 2003. The ZBA approved an Area Variance on March 17, 2004 for front yard and side yard setback relief for the proposed motel office reconstruction. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to rebuild the existing office associated with the Econo Lodge hotel, as well as enclose a portion of the existing motel and replace some light fixtures in front of the existing motel building. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - Landscaping Plan - Buffer zone waiver - No changes to the previously approved landscaping plan are proposed. The applicant has requested a waiver from the 50 ft. buffer zone requirement from the west and north property lines. This appears to be a reasonable request given that minor changes to the building and lighting fixture replacements are proposed with in this buffer. The applicant has requested a lighting plan waiver, however the plan calls for the replacement of existing light fixtures, and the applicant has submitted a lighting plan. As a general comment, the lighting plan submitted by the applicant appears inconsistent with the previously approved lighting plan. A legend identifying proposed lighting changes and previously approved fixtures should be provided. Additionally, based on the lighting contours on the plan, it is difficult to determine proposed foot-candle values. The applicant has 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) submitted cut sheets for the proposed lights. The light fixtures are downcast, cutoff fixtures, however the applicant should clarify the wattage and type (high pressure sodium or metal halide) that is proposed.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The site plan calls for the reconstruction of an existing office associated with the Econo Lodge as well as enclosing a walkway, exterior walkway, and replacing some light fixtures. As noted, the applicant has requested waivers from stormwater management, grading, lighting, landscaping plan, and also from the buffer zone requirements for the properties to the northwest. As of the writing of these notes, I made some comments on the lighting plan, and not being able to understand, since that time, the applicant has resubmitted a lighting plan which shows the grid readout for the foot candle values. As I’ve mentioned, the light fixtures are downcast cutoff, however, the applicant should still clarify the wattage and type and fixtures to be used, and just for your information, today we received C.T. Male signoff for this project, and it is in the file, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-No big comments that they had? MR. HILTON-No. It was, and I think the applicant can speak to this. It was based on, I guess in the southwest corner of the site, some potential stormwater grading issues, which C.T. Male seems to agree with the applicant’s comments that they’ve been trading back and forth. The one comment they’ve asked is to consider installing a catch basin in the lawn area, and I could read the letter for you right here. It just says, “In response to our March 19 comment letter, we th have received an e-mail response from the applicant’s consultant, consisting of a written response and attached photographs. We concur that the addition will not adversely affect drainage patterns in the area, and that a separate retaining wall will not be necessary. We have asked the applicant’s engineer to consider installing a catch basin in a lawn area just south of the building expansion. This catch basin would intercept runoff from the slope to the west prior to flowing across the proposed sidewalk. Based on the tributary area, this may or may not be necessary. We are agreeable to letting the applicant’s engineer make this decision.” And that’s all it says. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett, of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me tonight is the owner of the site, Sam Bhatti, as well as Don Davis, S.D. Attelie, the project architect. If you will recall, last year, you approved the site plan for a new motel building on this property, and we’re back tonight for modifications and an upgrade of the facade for the existing structure. Essentially we want to spruce up the existing motel units, cover the, enclose, I should say, the existing walkway on the existing motel units, and rebuild the motel management area, the front office area, of the existing building. Don can explain the facade improvements, should you wish, but you can see the rendering on the easel there of what we’re proposing to do. The two technical issues that were raised during review included lighting, which George has alluded to. We’re planning to replace the exterior light fixtures on the existing building with compliant wall-mounted cutoff fixtures, high pressure sodium, 400-watt. That’s the only change that’s planned with respect to lighting. The existing lighting plan that you approved last year would remain unchanged, other than that. With regard to drainage, I think C.T. Male did not understand the magnitude of what we were proposing. Once we sent them photographs of the area, they realized that it was a very minor change. Drainage patterns will not be changed by this addition. I think the comment they’re alluding to, with regard to a drop inlet, pertains to a new sidewalk we propose, and they’re wondering if drainage right now, existing drainage, falls down into a drop inlet in our parking lot would now cross this new sidewalk. It’s a valid comment. I promised that I would review it during a rainstorm and see if it truly does flow that way, and if so, we’ll put in a drop inlet. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anyone have any questions on site development? Stormwater? Lighting? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on lighting, relative to the Staff comment saying that the lighting plan appeared inconsistent with the previously approved lighting plan. Has that been resolved? MR. JARRETT-I’d like to call on George to help me through that. MR. HILTON-Just in terms of the legend, which, I guess I’m not finding a legend, but if there were one, the symbolization used for the lighting fixtures, it seems in pulling out the old plan, it’s just kind of hard to reconcile the two, and it was difficult to kind of gauge, you know, which fixtures were being placed where. This plan reflects some fixtures being in different locations than the previous plan. MR. JARRETT-The existing or? MR. HILTON-The plan that we received Friday. MR. JARRETT-On the existing building or? MR. HILTON-On the other part of the site. In looking at the entire site, trying to gauge what impact this would be, I guess we’re finding fixtures that are in portions of the parking area which weren’t shown on the previous site plan. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry, is that date that you’re looking at, George, 3/18? Is that your revision? MR. HILTON-Yes. I guess, if you understand what I’m saying, I’m comparing this to another plan, and this plan of 3/18 shows fixtures in other areas of the parking field, and I’m comparing this to another plan which was approved and stamped by our Zoning Administrator, and I’m just seeing locations that are different. MR. VOLLARO-Other than the comments on A, A being the new? MR. HILTON-Yes, and I guess ultimately that’s what we’re dealing with. We have an approved lighting plan, from the previous project, and, you know, I’m just trying to reconcile and make sure that we’re looking at the same number of fixtures that were approved and that there’s no addition or subtraction for that fact from what was previously shown on the other plans. MR. VOLLARO-Other than those nine, the nine A’s, if you will. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I can’t comment because I don’t have the other plan. So I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. See, that’s part of the reason why I asked the question, because I don’t have the other plan, either. MR. JARRETT-Well, the only answer I can give you is that there’s no intent to change anything on the previously approved portion of the plan, which means the parking lot and the new building. I guess we’ll have to sort through and understand where there’s a confusion on the legend or confusion on the fixture locations, but there’s no intent to change that existing. MR. MAC EWAN-The fixture is still the same as was previously approved on the addition? MR. JARRETT-Right. We’re only changing what was on the existing building. So, if it’s our confusion, we apologize. I’m not sure where the problem is right now, but there’s no intent to change that. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HILTON-That’s fine. That was my general comment. Just based on what I saw in looking at the previous plan. I guess more current to this application, we do have a plan in front of us now that shows the lighting grid. The applicant has indicated there’d be 400-watt high pressure sodium. Just a general comment, perhaps, in looking at these foot candle values, perhaps lowering the wattage a bit might make that portion of the building face the lights that you are replacing, more compliant with the Town Code, perhaps 250. I don’t know. MR. JARRETT-When you say more compliant with Town Code, meaning? MR. HILTON-We have, you know, we have the Code that talks about at building exterior, building face, and the parking area, certain luminance levels. I’m seeing some levels here that appear somewhat high, and, just thinking out loud, not having an additional or revised plan in front of me, perhaps going from 400 to 250 would bring some of those levels down and perhaps more compliant with the Town Code. MR. HUNSINGER-The highest levels, though, seem to be underneath the parking lot fixtures, rather than underneath the fixtures that would be replaced on the existing motel. MR. VOLLARO-The one thing I think is missing here, because I tried to do a four to one ratio calculation here. I need the average foot candles, and I need the min foot candles, in order for me to get a four to one, and I can’t do it with this. I could do it with like I did with Wal-Mart and start picking up all these things and get averages around. MR. JARRETT-If you’ll recall, Bob, we did that when we did this design last year, and you reviewed that, and we were in compliance, and all we’re changing now are the existing, in fact, this Board approved the old non-compliant fixtures on the existing building, and now we’re just trying to bring those fixtures into compliance. This is the first I understood George’s comment that he thinks our wattages might be too high, and if that’s the case, we’re certainly willing to discuss that with the Town, but we’re only trying to bring these into compliance as far as wall- mounted cut off fixtures. That’s the only change to our lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-We’re just coming up on the power curve now on lighting. Okay. MR. JARRETT-No put intended. MR. VOLLARO-No pun intended. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and we approved some lighting plans that I think, if we were to look at today, we would not approve. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. JARRETT-I do think, and I’d have to go back and check the record. I think you scrutinized this one pretty hard, and I think we were in compliance with the uniformity, as well as spillage. MR. VOLLARO-It’s an approved plan. MR. MAC EWAN-All you’re doing is updating, on the existing building, your cutoff fixtures, your wall pack fixtures or whatever, to meet what you have on the new one we just recently approved. The same one. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s the same thing. MR. JARRETT-Correct. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Using the same wattages. MR. JARRETT-The same wattages or certainly no more, and if there’s a comment that we should reduce them, I’ll take that into consideration. MR. MAC EWAN-But when we approved the expansion of the motel unit, refresh my memory, that came within Code. MR. VOLLARO-I think it was within 2.5, yes. I think the average was a little over two and a half. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I don’t remember off the top of my head, but I remember going over the plan. MR. VOLLARO-I think it was around 2.5 if we did an average. It’s not here. Usually there’s a lighting list in here that tells us what that is. So I don’t have it here. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I don’t know if you really want to revisit an already approved site. This is really. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. We all agree to that, but what we’re trying to do is ensure that the rehab portion of it matches what we previously approved on the expansion. MR. JARRETT-Well, we will state that we will match what was previously approved. MR. VOLLARO-If there’s a discrepancy, I think that, George, you’ve got to jump in the middle of this. If there’s a discrepancy between this plan and a previously approved plan, that seems to increase foot candles on the ground, and I think you’re going to. MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t know if it’s increasing foot candles on the ground. I’m simply stating that I, in comparing plans, I’ve seen locations that are different than the previous plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’ve got the old plan. You’ve got the new plan. MR. JARRETT-We do have the old plan. I don’t have it with me, unfortunately. I have it at the office. MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at it and see. I can’t comment on it. MR. HUNSINGER-I think if we just make a stipulation that you suggested, Bob, that any new wall pack lights don’t increase the foot candles in the previously approved plan, I think that would make me feel comfortable. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions on lighting? Landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-I think this is all for the good here, actually. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything relative to environmental? Neighborhood character? One last stab at site development, including vehicle access, pedestrian access, emergency access, parking fields? Design standards? Tell us about your architectural design on it. MR. JARRETT-Don, do you want to jump in and tell us a little bit about the architecture of the building? MR. DAVIS-Sure. My name is Don Davis, project architect. Could I go up to the Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. DAVIS-What we have here is a photograph just showing the existing building in the context, and then below, on the second board, we’re trying to give you a feel of the context with the new structure. In effect what we’re doing is taking this structure out and replacing it with a new structure, and then trying to square up the building structure. Because of the site constraints with the site lots and the skewed angles over in this corner, we’ve pulled the building in slightly in the rear a bit to square up the building to give it more of a symmetrical look. At the same time, what we wanted to do was take this building and try to feel it out, in terms of the mass in proportion to the new structure that’s presently under construction. So this is pretty close to what’s going on with the site, and trying to work with the size of this building in terms of its width, its height and its propositions, to respect the new building that’s going in place. What we’re trying to do is give this site more of a unified feeling, so it’s not so haphazard and broken up, and also playing off of some of the residential characteristics of the new structure, being the windows, incorporating the windows and the heating units, which are called P-Tak units, working with a residential manufacturer, bringing that characteristic over to the building, and then going with this same fiber cement material, which is the siding as well as the trim, bringing that over to the new building, and again, giving it some more of a symmetrical feeling and applying this to the existing building behind it in the rear. We were also trying to address some of the issues of fire and life safety with this structure, and creating a two hour fire separation wall between the actual suite unit, and then also looking at taking the existing circulation, which are outdoor corridor areas, which are right now presently not code conforming and making them noncombustible, and then improving on exiting with new exit stair tower units, and then, looking to enclose them, but allow for the opportunity for that enclosure to be taken off in the summertime, so that we can allow this to feel more as an open air sort of structure, but at the same time in the winter when it is enclosed, individuals have the opportunity to come out in through the walk area and access into the manager’s facility over here, and again, playing with the same roofing materials which is a standing scene, playing off of this existing, or this proposed structure that’s under construction, and then I’ve brought along some brick samples here which we’re looking to do at the base of the building structure, just to, again, tie this building down to its base, play off of some of the characteristics that we’re doing with the new building proposed down along its side, and then we also have up here two color schemes and then a third scheme in the rear which we’re still, I guess, in dialogue with the client on. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re going to be replacing the facade on the old? MR. JARRETT-On the motel units portion, you mean? What are you going to do to the motel units? He wants to know what you’re going to do to the facade of the motel unit section. MR. DAVIS-All we’re doing to the actual motel wing is replacing the walk areas with a noncombustible walk structure, as well as the stair towers, and then we’re looking to come up with a railing system that gives us still that residential feel, with some sort of a glass, or a plexi- glass panel behind that that could be, such as you have in a three-season porch, which you could put in place in the winter, and then remove in the summer. To us it’s very important that we allow, in the summertime, this to be open, so that we can allow light ventilation to get into the front windows and the doors that are accessed through the suites back behind it. MR. JARRETT-It may be as simple as just screens or storms that you can drop down to expose screens. It may be something as simple as that, to get some air. MR. DAVIS-Yes. Again, I think it’s important that because of its location relative to the context of the residence, we want to keep some of the detailing residential in the field, in a sense, but, obviously, it’s a commercial building. So there are some requirements for life safety and non- combustibility that we have to. MR. JARRETT-Those walkways right now are covered. They’re just not enclosed. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. I think it looks good. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HUNSINGER-I really like the proposed design. I think it looks really visually appealing. The only questions I really had were on the color schemes, and these prints never come out well. So I wasn’t sure, but it looks like the proposed color schemes are different than the new addition, than the new wing that you’re constructing? MR. JARRETT-There is a contrast, or at least a potential contrast. MR. DAVIS-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Because it looks like you’re giving us two options, either blue with yellow or yellow with blue. Whereas, the new wing is. MR. JARRETT-Actually we’re giving the owner the option still. He hasn’t decided. MR. HUNSINGER-Whereas the new wing is more of an earth tone, tanish color. MR. DAVIS-Yes. The new building, because it’s a separate standalone structure, we felt it was important for it to have it’s own color scheme. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. DAVIS-And I think that the whole site wants to be unified, but we felt there were other ways to do that, in terms of respecting the scale and the proportionality of it. I don’t think it’s advantageous to kin of allow both structures to have the same color scheme, because they really are two different building structures, and there’s a different history between the two. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, personally I think it would be more appealing if they were different colors. I just wanted to make sure that that was the intent, because again, you can’t always tell, you know, from these prints, you know, because they don’t print true color, but I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d support that, too. I think it looks nice. MR. JARRETT-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to site development? Architectural? Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff? MR. HILTON-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form? MR. HILTON-It’s a Type II. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HUNSINGER-There’s no SEQRA. MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. It’s a Type II. Sorry. Let’s talk about conditions, and the only condition I think I’m hearing is relative to the lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How do we want to word it, so that it’s? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what I had suggested is that the proposed new wall pack lights would match the previously approved lighting plan with no increase in foot candles. MR. HILTON-I guess I understand your intent that you’re looking for no fixture higher than what was approved previously. Is that correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HILTON-Okay. The applicant’s stated what their plan is. Perhaps you could just take that as that, and then make a condition, perhaps the wording could be proposed light fixtures not to exceed freestanding light fixtures approved with previous site plan, something along those lines, which is probably what you just said anyway, but I just wanted to clarify it and understand. MR. MAC EWAN-One more time, what did you say, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess mine was a little more vague than yours. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. I was following you. I got lost with him. MS. RADNER-Chris, may I suggest that, for enforcement purposes, so you end up with something enforceable later, is try not to go for the vague and perhaps specifically state that you’re not modifying the earlier approved lighting plan. MR. VOLLARO-I had words, I said, lighting plan shall have the same average foot candle as the original plan. MR. SANFORD-How about just no deviation from the previously approved plan, because they say there’s not going to be a deviation. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got the same foot candles on the ground, it isn’t going to deviation. In other words, if they do an analysis and get average foot candle on the ground that they had on the original site plan, and do it on this and it’s the same thing, then they’ve got it. MR. SANFORD-Well, the only issue is there is some question as to whether the fixtures are in different locations now, as opposed to the prior plan, even though the intent is not to have it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-The prior approved plan is the plan of record, the one they have to follow. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-And all I would say is we merely could condition that there be no modification to that previous plan, and then the real issue is the light on the office. Right? That we’re concerned about whether that could be lower. MR. JARRETT-The light on the office? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. SANFORD-Isn’t that the one where there’s 400 versus we’re thinking 250? MR. JARRETT-I think George was referring to the building in general, as I recall, and there is some question as to what the wattages on the new building were approved, and we said, I stipulated that we would not exceed whatever was previously approved as wall packs, and I will restate that. There’s no intent to change the parking lot fixtures whatsoever. Location or wattage, or fixture type. MR. HUNSINGER-I think I’ve got it now. Let me throw this by everyone and see if we can all agree, that the new wall pack fixtures shall match similar fixtures of the previously approved lighting plan, with no overall increase in foot candles. MR. MAC EWAN-Doable? MR. VOLLARO-That’s doable. MR. MAC EWAN-Doable. Run with it, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-2004 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 12-2004 Applicant/Property Owner: Aftab Bhatti SEQR Type II Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers Zone: HC-INT Location: 543 Aviation Road Applicant proposes to reconstruct the hotel office associated with the Econo Lodge on Aviation Road, as well as alterations to the building exterior and lighting associated with the existing hotel building at this location. Hotel uses in the HC-Int. zone require site plan review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SP 20-2003, AV 19 -04 Warren Co. Planning: 3/10/04 Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12 Lot size: 0.39 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: March 23, 2004 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/17/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/19/04, and 3/23 Staff Notes 3/18 Lighting Plan submitted 3/16 Notice of Public Hearing 3/10 Warren Co. Planning: Approved w/condition 2/27 Meeting Notice 2/25 E-mail from M. Shaw WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 3/23/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. The new proposed new wall pack fixtures shall match similar fixtures of the previously approved lighting plan, with no overall increase in foot-candles on the site. Duly adopted this 23 day of March, 2004, by the following vote: rd AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. JARRETT-Thank you much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. VOLLARO-We’re becoming lighting experts here, slowly but surely, I’ll tell you. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID MENTER AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, DENNIS MAC ELROY ZONE: HC-INT. LOCATION: 1130 STATE ROUTE 9, WAKITA MOTEL APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3 STORY, 44,000 SQ. FT. HOTEL BUILDING ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING FACILITIES. HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/10/04 TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-9 LOT SIZE: 6 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-2004, David Menter, Meeting Date: March 23, 2004 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 13-2004 APPLICANT: David Menter is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 3 story, 85 unit, 44,000 sq. ft. hotel, with associated parking, landscaping and lighting. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the Wakita Motel property at the northeast corner of Route 9 and Round Pond Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned HC-Int, Highway Commercial Intensive. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short form 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning Board or ZBA activity for this property. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct an 85 unit, 3 story, 44,000 sq. ft. hotel on the existing Wakita Motel property. The site plan also proposes site lighting, landscaping, vehicular parking and stormwater management facilities. As part of the plan, two existing curb cuts on Route 9 will be consolidated into one access point on Route 9, while a new curb cut is proposed for Round Pond Rd. STAFF COMMENTS: Grading/Stormwater The applicant has submitted a grading plan and stormwater management plan and report, which has been submitted to CT Male for their review and comment. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and NOI for the proposed project needs to be submitted to NYSDEC. Any comments from CT Male concerning Grading and Stormwater should be addressed as part of the review of this application. Visual Impact The site plan contains a sectional view that presents the hotel building in relation to the existing and proposed grades. What impact will the proposed grading and clearing have on the visibility of the proposed hotel? How will the existing vegetation that will remain impact views of this site from adjacent properties? Traffic Information concerning potential vehicle trips for the proposed use of this site has not been provided as part of the application materials. A review of ITE Trip Generation rates indicates that trip generation rates for motel uses are based on the number of employees and the number of occupied rooms. Staff has included the pages from the ITE manual that summarize the trip generation rates for motel uses. Additionally, Staff has included correspondence from A/GFTC, which provides traffic count data for Route 9 between Glen Lake Rd. and Round Pond Rd.; and for round Pond Rd. Pedestrian Access The site plan proposes to consolidate two curb cuts on Route 9 into one curb cut that will provide access to the new hotel building. As part of this curb cut consolidation, does the applicant propose to construct new sidewalks to connect to existing sidewalks along Route 9? Additionally, consideration should be given to constructing a sidewalk from the proposed hotel to Route 9 (along the north side of the proposed Route 9 access drive) in order to provide pedestrian access to the attractions on Route 9. Landscaping The interior parking lot landscaping and landscaping adjacent to the proposed hotel appear to conform the Zoning Ordinance requirements. However, the landscaping plan does not propose street trees along Route 9 or Round Pond Rd. as required by § 179-8-040 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Route 9 Design Guidelines. It should be noted that there appears to be a discrepancy between JP indicated on the planting schedule and JC indicated on the landscaping plan. Lighting 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) The applicant has submitted a lighting plan and cut sheets for one type of light fixture proposed. As a general comment, the lighting plan does not contain enough information to provide complete comment. As a result, Staff has the following preliminary comments: Cut sheets for the three different types of lights proposed need to be submitted - The location of all light fixtures should be indicated on the lighting plan - Are any wall packs proposed as part of the lighting plan? - Foot-candle values for the entire property should be provided - Based on the lighting grid supplied by the applicant, the foot-candle levels for the - parking areas and driveways appear to be above illuminance levels listed in the Zoning Ordinance The cut sheet for one of the freestanding light fixtures that has been provided is not a - full cut-off fixture as required by the Zoning Ordinance Are all proposed lights downcast fixtures? What are the proposed mounting angles for - all freestanding light fixtures? Existing light fixtures and foot-candle values should be presented on the lighting plan - The lighting plan should be prepared at a scale consistent with the rest of the site plan - Route 9 Design Guidelines This property is located within the Upper Route 9 Design area. The streetscape elements section of the Route 9 Design Guidelines calls for street trees along Route 9, sidewalks and lighting to conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As Staff has suggested, street trees, sidewalks and lighting that conforms to Zoning requirements should be reflected on the site plan as called for in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has included preliminary building elevations for the proposed hotel. At this time, detailed building elevations have not been submitted in support of the proposed site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Quickly my comments, as you can see in the notes, I’ve broken them down by topic. I’m going to start with grading and stormwater. Essentially, this project has been referred to C.T. Male for comments, for their comment on grading and stormwater. So I’ll leave that to their comment letter. Visual impact. I’ve mentioned the existing and proposed grades, and asked some questions about what the impact will be. The applicant has included some, a visual cross section. I guess my question is, when all is said and done, really what is it going to look like, and what’s the vegetation that’s to remain going to do, in terms of screening and just how will it look from surrounding properties. As far as traffic, I’ve provided some numbers, some ITE numbers and some traffic counts from AGFTC. Honestly, I’m not a traffic engineer, but certainly traffic is something to consider here, and I guess the question would be, overall, what impact will this have on the Route 9 and Round Pond Road transportation system, given the proposed changes to Route 9, and then all the other projects that we’ve been looking at, that the Planning Board has been looking at recently, or will look at. In terms of pedestrian access, I’ve made the comment about connecting the hotel to the existing sidewalk system on Route 9, and I’ve asked the question, as part of the curb cut consolidation, what impact would that have on sidewalks on Route 9. Landscaping, the interior parking lot landscaping, and the landscaping adjacent to the proposed building, appears to conform to the Ordinance. However, street trees are required in the landscaping section of our Code, and within the Route 9 design guidelines are not reflected on this plan. As far as lighting goes, that’s where I had the most questions, and I’ve outlined in the notes various questions, and I guess an updated plan with these elements would go a long way in providing us something to review and provide additional, or provide comment on lighting. As I mentioned with the Route 9 design guidelines, this is in the upper Route 9 design area. The streetscape elements do call for street trees, sidewalks, and lighting to conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Again, Staff has suggested street trees, sidewalks, and we await a lighting plan with the elements we’ve listed. So we can provide comment. The applicant has submitted building elevations for your 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) review. As I said, this has been referred to C.T. Male for their comment and review, and Warren County has recommended approval of this project, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dennis MacElroy, project engineer, and Dave Menter to my right. Dave and his family have owned the Waikita motel for a number of years, and they are very excited about the idea of replacing it with a modern facility. I’m just going to make some quick, general comments, and then Dennis will walk you through the site plan. In general, they’re removing 15 cabins and replacing them with an 85 unit motel building. So there’s a net increase of 70 units. The site is just slightly smaller than six acres. So it can well accommodate this proposed building without any variances, and the way Dave asked Dennis to design the site was to keep the existing hill along Round Pond Road, so that it would act as a buffer between that roadway, any of the neighbors, the Twicwood development to the south of the property, and the new hotel building, and as Dennis will show you, the trees and the hill on the roadside of the project are staying, and that will do a nice job buffering the building. Their site, of course, is adjacent to The Great Escape, and they tried to move the building back a little bit from The Great Escape, in terms of noise impacts on their project from The Great Escape, but it’s a compatible use because their guests come to enjoy the area, which includes The Great Escape. Some of the other benefits are elimination of an existing curb cut on Route 9. We’ve presented this to DOT. They asked for some minor changes, which have been incorporated, in terms of the exact location of that curb cut. So that is across the street from the Martha’s curb cut, and that’s an improvement, as well, by eliminating one curb cut, and aligning the new one with the curb cut across the street. In general, the project happens, to a large extent, that the rear of the property, it’s well set back. So it’s not a big impact on Route 9, and the existing house and office building will be removed. So that also reduces the impact from Route 9. With those general comments, let me ask Dennis to give you the details. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you, Jon. Perhaps I’ll try to refer to the site layout plan. This is an approximately six acre parcel. It fronts on Route 9, approximately 300 feet, Round Pond Road to the east, or south, I should say. As Jon had described, there’s an existing office/house building located in this location, an existing motel building of 13 units here, and then a scattering of cottage cabins up on the hillside. Now this is the site layout plan. You could refer to Sheet Two for Grading, which gives an indication of the topography, obviously, of the site. It’s, at grade here to Route 9 in the front, and then the site rises approximately 50 feet or so to the highest point, and it is wooded throughout this back side. Obviously, the projection gives a good indication of that cleared in front with the two, with the house and the pool and the motel and then the wooded area for the bulk of the property as it rises to the top of the hill. Again, as Jon indicated, we’ve looked at a couple of different design options for placing the building on the site so that it would maintain a certain buffer, primarily along this slope to Round Pond Road, trying to maintain pushing it into the hillside enough that we’d maintain the little bit of vegetation that there is between The Great Escape activities and the proposed activity in that location. We came up with this orientation which cuts into the hillside. Sheet Two, I believe it is, has that sectional view that George referred to. It gives a fairly simple cross section through the site, in this orientation, gives you an idea of what the existing profile is, what the location, elevation wise, of the new building as it is cut into the slope, thus maintaining this area again to the Round Pond Road side of that vegetation maintained as a buffer. Primary access in off of Route 9, up the slope to parking, associated parking and lighting serving the 85 unit hotel building, three story, parking 102 spaces, which is the, based on the parking schedule for this use, the existing motel will remain in place, having actually about 16 spaces in front of the 13 units or so that exist there. We have a secondary access out to Round Pond Road. DOT has reviewed this, and what you see on your plan, there has been a slight revision reflected on the updated version, moves that curb cut just slightly north. Doesn’t quite get to that existing northern curb cut, but aligns with one of Martha’s curb cuts on the opposite side. That’s what DOT’s comments were based on, but they were satisfied otherwise, and have given us a letter, which is in the project file. George had a number of comments that we have responded to. We got those comments yesterday morning and responded as best we could to the comments that 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) Staff has made. The one thing that we aren’t, we don’t have in our possession quite yet is the photometric plan for the new lighting. We’ve looked at a couple of options, in terms of being compliant with the Town’s standards. Pole height, for the most part, is 20 feet, which is a Queensbury maximum. We have some 12 foot decorative lighting posts that are closer to the hotel building, and at a couple of other points within the development, but primarily they’re 20 foot pole heights with a shoebox type cut off lighting. George made comments about that. We’ve provided the cut sheets from those, from that manufacturer, and certainly compliant with the Town standards. We’re getting those lighting levels, foot candle levels, as you like to see them, in a grid printout of what the lighting is at any particular area until the light zeros out. What we had provided before, only concentrated within the parking area, and therefore we’ll provide that supplemental information. Unfortunately, just in the timing of things, we won’t have that probably until tomorrow or Thursday, but obviously the effort is to create a lighting plan that’s compliant with the Town standards. Other features, municipal sewer and water to the site, stormwater management, which is shown on the grading plan, Sheet Two. Again, we’ve submitted a response to the C.T. Male comments, today, we got those on Friday and we’ve responded today, and I can’t imagine that you’ve heard anything back from them, but we have addressed the issues that Jim Houston had identified. So we think that we’re in good shape with those as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe just for the effort just to move things along here, Dennis, why don’t we just go through C.T. Male’s letter, and if you’ve already responded to him, I mean, their letter is dated the 19, which is last week some time. So if you’ve responded to that, maybe you th could just kind of clarify for the Board where you are relative to that. MR. LAPPER-Did the Board receive copies of the response? MR. HILTON-No, we received the response from the applicant today. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. MAC ELROY-Okay. The C.T. Male letter has a variety of comments regarding stormwater and grading. Our response to those numbered responses. They asked about the Notice of Intent which is the DEC stormwater construction phase plan. They identified that it’s required. We understand that. We’ve started the process for completion of that. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s bullet item one. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Number Two. MR. MAC ELROY-Number Two, additional storm structures have been added to the plan at Round Pond Road intersection, and information on the existing elevation and drainage will be provided as we pick it up in the field. Item Three, the proposed catch basins have been numbered. MR. VOLLARO-Can I ask a question on those? Are those the ones, there’s a couple that are not numbered near the new pool, existing catch basins near the new pool. MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Where the infiltration goes in one direction, and then it goes in another. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, and that’s been slightly revised. MR. VOLLARO-I was wondering, I read the condition of soil here, but these things terminate at that point, and then where do they, do they go to the infiltration basins? 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. One in the northeast corner of the property, which is the back corner, and one in the corner near Round Pond Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure that I didn’t, I’m going from memory on the drawing. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. That’s represented on Sheet Two, the utility drawing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Bullet item four? MR. MAC ELROY-The slopes of the storm discharge pipes have been revised to reduce the steep grades. Specifications for riprap stabilization have also been added to the plan. The riprap parameters are in accordance with the New York State guidelines for urban erosion and sediment control. MR. MAC EWAN-Five? MR. MAC ELROY-Supplemental hydraulic mottling data is included with this letter that represents the proposed storm sewer pipes. The original sub-catchments have been further divided to mottle the contributing areas to each individual pipe run. Results for the storm sewer indicate that the selected pipe sizes will convey, at a minimum, the runoff generated by a 25 year storm event. MR. MAC EWAN-Six? MR. MAC ELROY-Copies of the Hydro Cad results for the storm sewer included with this letter. The full flows are conveyed in each section without reliance on surcharge. MR. MAC EWAN-Seven? MR. MAC ELROY-The detail for sediment and erosion control within the concentrated swale will be changed. MR. MAC EWAN-Eight? MR. MAC ELROY-A temporary siltation basin has been added to the storm management area at the entrance to the site. A note specifies that the berm separating the temporary structure from the main basin is to be removed after the site is stabilized. Sediment accumulated in the temporary section will be cleaned. A note has also been added near the storm management basin at the northeast corner. This basin is to be cleaned of accumulated sediment after the site is stabilized. The site grades do not readily provide for construction of the separate temporary sediment basin. It is important to realize that there is no outfall from the northeast storm management area. A small culvert shown on the north line is an in flow to the natural low area from The Great Escape. The invert of that culvert was observed as being at least two feet above the existing grade, and four feet above the proposed bottom of the storm basin. Although access to The Great Escape was not available, it is obvious from the condition of the pipe and inspection of the surrounding areas that inflow from this source is minimal. The pipe most likely was installed to drain a flat area between the amusement rides of only nuisance amounts of stormwater. MR. MAC EWAN-Which catch basin are you referring to that’s going to be cleaned out after construction is completed? MR. MAC ELROY-Both. Both to the northeast and the south. MR. LAPPER-The back north corner and the front south. MR. MAC ELROY-Storm basin, correct. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Will there be a note put on the drawing that that’s going to be done? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. It has been, actually. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s done on your revised ones already? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Number Nine. MR. MAC ELROY-Erosion control measures are now shown on the plan, in the area of the existing cabins. MR. MAC EWAN-Ten? MR. MAC ELROY-No changes to the existing drainage patterns in front of the existing motel are planned. Additional topographical information will be added to the plan when available to better illustrate the drainage patterns in that area. MR. MAC EWAN-Eleven. MR. MAC ELROY-An additional note has been added to the catch basin sediment detail that specifies that fabric is to remain under the catch basin grades, after pavement is constructed and the silt fence is no longer practical. This is the typical method of restricting silt entry into catch basins and paved areas. MR. MAC EWAN-Twelve. MR. MAC ELROY-Supplemental data is included with this letter showing the results of the post development water shed without the open space surfaces. Sub-catchments one and five were not altered, as these areas mottle existing portions of the property that are not being altered. Mottling simply a paved surface did yield somewhat higher volumes at peak rates of runoff. The summary chart from the original narrative has been updated with these new figures. This chart shows that post development rates of runoff remain less than existing conditions for each storm event. MR. MAC EWAN-Thirteen. MR. MAC ELROY-The emergency overflow in the front basin is not anticipated to be used during normal conditions. The purpose of the overflow is to provide a backup path of drainage in the event that the pipe inlet becomes plugged. The stone reinforcement of the overflow will be removed in favor of a more aesthetic alternative. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Access management on bullet item fourteen. MR. MAC ELROY-The revised site plan clarifies the proposed access to the existing motel as coming off of the proposed drive up to the new hotel facility. There will be only one curb cut along the Rt. 9 frontage. The revised plan clarifies the pavement limits and areas of sidewalk and vegetation. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I, particularly, am going to want to come back to that, to that item. Number Fifteen. MR. MAC ELROY-The minimum site distance along Round Pond Road, 40 mile an hour speed limit, for the passenger vehicle exiting the motel driveway is 445’. The proposed sight distance will exceed the requirement. Grading and/or vegetation removal at the edge of the hillside will be completed as necessary. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Sixteen. MR. MAC ELROY-Driveway intersection vehicle signage will be added as needed. Refer to the Site Layout Plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are they referencing a stop sign or something, yield sign? MR. MAC ELROY-In the interior intersections. Miscellaneous bullet item seventeen. MR. MAC ELROY-The proposed hotel building will have a sprinkler system. The water supply to the hydrant adjacent to the building will be a six inch main. The service into the building will be sized by the architect with separation to the domestic and fire systems within the mechanical room. The placement of the proposed hydrant conforms to the code requirements for hydrant coverage. MR. MAC EWAN-Eighteen. MR. MAC ELROY-Eighteen. Addition of the sanitary sewer pipe size has been made to Sheet No. 2. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. MAC ELROY-That covers that response to the C.T. Male comments. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s start asking some questions. Has anybody got any questions regarding design standards, building design layout, signage, conformance with design corridor standards? MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the design standards, Route 9 design standards, that require the street trees every 35 feet, I believe. Can we see that in the next drawing? MR. MAC ELROY-One per every 250 feet along that frontage. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe it’s one every 35 feet on Route 9. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. MR. LAPPER-Whatever it is, we’ll do it. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question with regards to, I’m looking at Sheet One, and it looks like it’s a rendering of the existing facilities, there’s a curb right near the pool area. There’s that arcing. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That’s an existing curb. MR. SEGULJC-What is going to happen with that? MR. MAC ELROY-That would be removed. The curb, the entry to the parking lot of the motel has been revised from the drawing that you see. It’s clearly defined. The entry to the motel parking is along the drive, the one access drive in. There’s one curb cut, one access drive in. That would spur off to the motel parking. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, the, shall we refer to it as the existing motel, the motel building it’s called, existing motel 13 units. So off of that there’s going to be? MR. HUNSINGER-It looks like it’s shown on the one that’s up on the board? MR. MAC ELROY-That’s correct. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s the new one. MR. SEGULJIC-No, on the board, that gray area to the south, I guess it is, that’s what’s going to remain as the buffer? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s the hill. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re going to leave the portion of the hill along the Round Pond Road, and cut in back of that? MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s going to be a pretty steep cut anyways, correct? MR. LAPPER-We have the grading plan. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. The grading plan on Sheet Two would reflect the area that would remain undisturbed, and that area that would require re-grading, and again, the sectional view that’s also on Sheet Two gives you some indication of what the existing profile is and what the finished profile would be. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s going to limit the view from Round Pond Road of the? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. That would limit the view from Round Pond Road. MR. VOLLARO-But not necessarily from Route 9, and we’ll get to that in a little bit. There may be some visibility coming down that hill. MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Looking at the top. Not that it’s objectionable, but from different locations you might see the motel. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. LAPPER-But it is set back pretty far. MR. VOLLARO-So we have a new drawing. I’m going to kind of go through something here. MR. MAC EWAN-Stick to site development, design standards. MR. VOLLARO-Conformance with design corridor. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s where I’m at. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Specifically Route 9 requirements. Now, I’ve assumed that Route 9 is 50 feet wide, to the right of way to right of way. That’s what the drawing shows at least. If I’m correct, the distance from property line to the northeast Route 9 right of way is approximately six feet at the 334 radius. What I’m trying to drive at here is I don’t think you’ve got enough room, physically, to comply with the Route 9 guidelines. That doesn’t make you can make the room. I think the most room you’ve got, from the north side of your new entrance to The Great Escape line, the best you can do in there is put a sidewalk in. I don’t think you can get the trees in, and I don’t think you can get the grass strip in or any of that. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. LAPPER-Because of the grade. MR. VOLLARO-No, you don’t have enough width. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s width, correct. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have enough width. You’ve got about six feet. MR. MAC ELROY-From the property line, well, the sidewalk, first of all, is within the right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine. If we can cross the right of way, that’s a whole other story. I saw the right of way as a constriction here. If we can to the other side of the right of way for trees and whatever. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Then we can make, but right now the way that drawing shows, there’s a constriction here, without a DOT approval for trespass on the right of way. You’ve got to get something from DOT that says, okay, I’ll allow you to put trees or whatever in the right of way, because now you’re in the right of way of the road. Do you follow what I’m saying? MR. MAC ELROY-If the planting area is between the curb of Route 9 and the sidewalk, which isn’t possible. MR. VOLLARO-It’s impossible. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. The planting, the re-vegetation along that stretch, will be on private property, will be on Dave’s property, and that’s where the trees will be supplemented from the existing. MR. VOLLARO-Do you think you’ve got enough room there? I measured that off to be very, very narrow. If you go to where you’ve got your 34 radius, that’s the input for the parking lot, there’s the 34 radius there, right on Route 9. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-You see that R 34? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-If you measure from the property line to what I think is the right of way, you’ve only got six feet there, to do something with. MR. MAC EWAN-If that was the case, his sign’s sitting in the right of way. The proposed sign is sitting in the right of way. So that can’t be accurate. MR. VOLLARO-No, no, the proposed sign is way up on his property. MR. MAC ELROY-The property line is the dark, heavy line. MR. VOLLARO-The proposed sign is fine. I’m talking about the property line going to the southwest. Right along Route 9. There is not enough room there to put anything but a sidewalk in, I don’t think. MR. LAPPER-Are you talking on the south side? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC ELROY-You’re talking on the south side of the entry way. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking on the north side of the entry. MR. MAC ELROY-Which is The Great Escape side. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. LAPPER-There’s plenty of room, on Dave’s property. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got me lost. You can put it all right through here. MR. VOLLARO-You mean up on his own property? MR. LAPPER-On his own property. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. If that’s where you’re going to use it, that’s fine. MR. MAC ELROY-There’s a sidewalk within the right of way, plantings will be on his property. MR. VOLLARO-To the west of his, of the sidewalk? MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. VOLLARO-To the east of the sidewalk. MR. MAC EWAN-His plantings would be to the east of the sidewalk. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Closest to the property. MR. LAPPER-They’ll be healthier, because they’ll be away from the salt and the snow. MR. MAC EWAN-You were throwing me on that, because I was thinking that Wal-Mart, we just approved Wal-Mart, conditionally what they’ve got, and we had them re-do all the landscaping around 9, and none of that’s in the right of way. MR. VOLLARO-It’s all up on their property. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because if you look at the Route 9 corridor the way it’s laid out, in Figure 11, it shows the grass next to Route 9 and then it shows the sidewalk and then it shows the trees. MR. LAPPER-But the problem is, the existing sidewalk was put in before the design guidelines. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So this sidewalk is there already. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. We would simply supplement it across where the existing curb cuts will be eliminated. We’ll fill in those gaps. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I guess one of my concerns, I suppose, I wrote it down, I was just surprised that we got the DOT approval on that curb cut. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s stick with the design standards and stuff. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all I’ve got right now, on design standards. I’m looking at the new print now. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re the only one, looking at the new print. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Are we talking anything on vehicle access, traffic? MR. MAC EWAN-Not yet. We’re going to get there, though. Any other questions relative to conformance with design standards, building design and layout, signage? MR. SEGULJIC-Building design. What’s the building going to look like, as far as color schemes? MR. MAC ELROY-This is a rendering we’ve just recently received from the architect, three story building, tan shades, various elevations. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the roof going to be white? MR. MAC ELROY-No. That shingle color wasn’t added. DAVE MENTER MR. MENTER-Dave Menter. The roof is going to be, it’s going to be an earth tone. We’re not sure exactly what it’s going to be yet. It’s not going to be blue or bright red or anything like that. It’s going to be a brown or a gray, possibly a green, but it’s going to be tying in with the other colors you have that are earth tones. It’s basically, it’s going to be an EFIS building, as far as the exterior finish, in muted tone, and there’s some stonework around the base for accents, and it’s a little difficult to see on that, but the accents, the architectural accents are going to be wood. So it will have Adirondack style, or actually more like highlights to the building, but the design basically is going to be muted and blend in with what’s there. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you be able to provide us some drawings next time around, architectural renderings for the Board to review? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Back to the roof color, green may look well, because of the pine trees, there’s so many pine trees, in and around the site. MR. MENTER-Okay. Yes, that’s, and again, we just haven’t nailed it yet, but that’s why that’s certainly under consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-I was thinking forest green as being sort of Adirondacky anyway, you know. MR. MENTER-Yes, and that’s what we’re looking to do. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to building design and layout, signage? Site development, soils, geology, hydrology, vehicle access, pedestrian access, parking fields, emergency access? MR. SANFORD-I’ve got a question. As you know, The Great Escape is looking to put up a hotel on the other side, and I was wondering, when you were talking to the Department of Transportation, did you talk about the possibility of getting a light there on Round Pond Road, at the intersection with Route 9? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. LAPPER-My understanding is that there’s already a light that’s called for when The Great Escape completes their project to the south, that that’s going to be their main access drive to the parking lot at some point. MR. SANFORD-Yes. No, I hear you, and this is where I think what we have to do here is not treat this as specifically your issue, but something that I think there’s a lot of common interest in doing, because we haven’t established when that ring road will be completed, and it’ll become an intersection versus, I guess, a perpendicular, as it currently is, and the same thing with Glen Lake Road, but, as I see these two projects moving along, not only once they’re operational, but in the construction phase, I see some real traffic issues, and I certainly would like for us all to get out in front with getting lights on both of those intersections, and I think it’s essential. So that’s my big concern with this project. It would be terrible to think of how that could work. Right now it’s impossible to get out of there, and if you have this hotel, and then you have the other one, I mean, this is going to be, you just can’t do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe I have some insight into that. I know that there was a meeting that was conducted last week that those wheels in motion have commenced. It was a combined meeting. I’m not sure, all the players were there, but there was people there from DOT as well as Great Escape, as well as our staff, discussing that issue with the ring road and making sure that it comes out and it’s opposite Round Pond Road, and that there would be lights at both Glen Lake Road and Round Pond Road. I’m not sure. It’s going to be an ongoing thing, but those wheels are being put in motion as we speak. MR. SANFORD-Well, the reason I bring it up is that I think that you’re going to have an interest in that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, obviously, I mean, you know, just from the standpoint of, from a SEQRA standpoint, you’re looking at cumulative impacts. I mean, you’re looking at, this isn’t a standalone project. Even though it is, you have to look at the impacts that fits that whole corridor. MR. LAPPER-Certainly when The Great Escape uses that intersection as one of their entrances and exits, it’s going to be important that there be a light there. We have submitted our plans to DOT, and this is only a net increase of 70 rooms, because, again, we’re removing 15 rooms that exist now, and the peak hour traffic is 42 trips. MR. MAC EWAN-But then again, Jon, it’s not just the net of this one particular project. It’s the net of everything that’s going on up there right now, and as you well know, that Round Pond Road is used for a lot of parking relative to The Great Escape, which, you know, that funnels down on that road, not just what the potential is coming out of this 85 unit motel. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’ve also got a new housing development on the corner of Round Pond Road and. MR. LAPPER-Birdsall Road. I don’t know what you’ve got 30 houses up there, 20 houses up there, something to that effect. I know that the letter that you have in the packet that’s part of our material that was a March 5 approval, I think it was, from DOT. I don’t know how that’s th going to play into things now, because now that this whole conversation is starting to take place, relative to The Great Escape, I’m going to ask some questions about it tomorrow with Staff and see where things are. I mean, from my personal point of view, I don’t see the necessity of having another access onto Route 9, 125 or 130 feet away from Round Pond. Why can’t that just be internalized and you could funnel all your traffic out onto Round Pond, knowing that there’s going to be a light coming? To me, from a safety standpoint, from an access standpoint, it would make a lot more sense. I don’t feel comfortable, personally, to me, that you have another access that close to a major intersection, as congested as the problems are up there right now. This is an opportunity, obviously, to clean things up and make traffic move a lot easier. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. LAPPER-I guess from our perspective, right now we’ve got a situation with two existing curb cuts. So we feel that by eliminating on, consolidating them into one curb cut, at the location that DOT required. We think we’re making a major improvement over what’s there now. MR. MAC EWAN-Given the fact that that may change. I mean, that’s why I’m laying this ground work for you. I mean, you’re talking about a March 5 approval from DOT. That was th before they were aware of all this ongoing stuff with creating this connector road on the other side of Route 9, and the potential for a traffic light at Round Pond Road. MR. MAC ELROY-No, I think they’re fully aware of that loop road. MR. MAC EWAN-No, they are not. They were not as of March the 5. I do know that for a th fact. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, actually we sent them Creighton Manning’s plan which showed that road. Mark Kennedy from DOT had requested it. MR. MAC EWAN-But they were referring to a traffic light being down there, and what they were talking about, according to The Great Escape’s supplemental EIS, is that that is to be built in phases based on attendance at The Great Escape. So the potential for that connector road to be built next year may not hit, based on attendance records. I mean, that could, the threshold may hit five or seven years down the road. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I think where this Board has been gearing and pushing The Great Escape on is we want to see it done now. We don’t want to see it done five years down the road. It’s an opportunity to make all these improvements now, and get everybody on board and get all the players involved in it, to make sure these things come to fruition. MR. LAPPER-Are you going to ask The Great Escape to construct that light now, rather than wait until they build their entrance road? MR. MAC EWAN-The consensus, what I’ve been hearing from the Board the last couple of meetings with The Great Escape, I’m sensing that’s where the Board’s leaning. Obviously, I’m one member here, and obviously there’s still a lot of discussions that need to take place, both from a higher Town level with DOT and the applicant and their engineering staff, but I’m sensing that’s the direction it seems to be heading. MR. LAPPER-That would only help Dave if there was a traffic light there. MR. MAC EWAN-It would only help everybody, which is the reason why, personally, I would like to see that other curb cut onto Route 9 eliminated. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess from the applicant’s perspective, they’re reluctant to not have some access to Route 9, just because that’s where the traffic is, and you want to get the traffic onto your site, and they certainly came in, anticipating that the Board would like to see one curb cut rather than two, and we went to DOT first so we could get their signoff, and they were pleased with this. MR. MAC EWAN-Who said that the Board would want to see one curb cut instead of two? MR. LAPPER-I’m saying we anticipated that the Board would rather see one rather than two on Route 9. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. It’s my position I’d rather see it eliminated. I just see the potential for serious traffic problems, site safety issue, access, egress issue. To eliminate that, and obviously it’s all a matter of all these cards falling into place, to make sure that things come out the way we would hope they would, but, to me, that would go a long ways in resting my concerns that I would have about another access, especially the congestion that Martha’s seems to deliver in the summertime. MR. SANFORD-Yes, you know, the reason I raised it in the first place was so that you wouldn’t go down the path thinking that this light isn’t going to be very important in this project review, and then we’re in a situation where you’re anticipating having the curb cut somewhere else, and then having problems. So I’m not exactly sure how it all gets coordinated, but I think it’s important for you to be aware of where I think this Board is going on this, and that is we certainly are going to be strong advocates for the two lights, and the pedestrian bridge, and the completion of the ring road. So I just want you to have a heads up on that, and hopefully be part of the process. MR. LAPPER-That’s all positive stuff that’s good for all of us in the community, and good for Dave as the neighbor across the street. So no issue. I think that, based upon the level of traffic that he generates, which is relatively minor and certainly very minor for this road, he’s going to request that he keeps one curb cut on Route 9, because it’s important for the site, and I think that certainly with a traffic light, that curb cut shouldn’t be a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-We understand your position. Let’s not spend a whole bunch of time on it, but it seems like the consensus up here, the majority seems to say that they would be more comfortable with that being eliminated, and all the traffic being funneled onto Round Pond Road where we’d hopefully have the opportunity of having a traffic light to help move things along a lot easier. MR. VOLLARO-Well, to support that, Mr. Chairman, on 179-19-010 states, and I quote from the 179, it says properties with frontage on two or more roads do not have the right to driveways to all roads. That’s what our zoning code says. So that would support the fact that we don’t need a curb cut on both of those. It seems to me that the Code is that way, but let me just get into, I have a note here that I wrote at home, that supports what the Chairman just said. This is a note that I was going to read out. I’m having a difficult time with traffic in general on Route 9, strongly feel we’re dealing with an integrated traffic problem along this corridor. So far we’ve been addressing traffic on this corridor on a case by case basis. I don’t think we can any longer do that. SEQRA doesn’t allow us to do that, because of segmentation requirement, and it’s really now, in my mind, come to be a systems problem. We’ve really got to look at it from the 254 intersection all the way up now. It’s poor planning for us to just. MR. LAPPER-We don’t disagree with any of that. The question is whether the minor number of trips generated by this project require that kind of a result. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we all know what everybody’s position is. We can sit here and probably talk about this all night long. I’d like to move this along a little bit. MR. LAPPER-We’ll consider what you’ve said. We’ll consult with our traffic engineer and talk about it next time. We hear you. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got some data here from traffic that says, we’re talking about traffic along Route 9, for example, and on Tuesday at 6 p.m., this is data supplied by New York State traffic. There’s 802 axel counts along that road at six o’clock between Route 9 and 254. MR. MAC EWAN-And what’s the dates? MR. VOLLARO-The dates were, the date this was taken was at the end of July of 2002. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. SANFORD-What’s 254 again? MR. VOLLARO-Quaker. So we’ve got, when I see those numbers, you’re adding a miniscule amount to those numbers. There’s no question about that. I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning the overall concept now. MR. LAPPER-We’ll consider your comments. Check with our traffic engineer, and be back to talk about that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think it’s really good to look at that. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask one question on the stormwater? MR. MAC EWAN-Are we all done on vehicle access, site development data, parking fields, emergency access, pedestrian, etc., etc., etc.? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My notes that said, I was surprised with the DOT approval. That’s my own comment. MR. MAC EWAN-It preceded what’s developed in the last week and a half or two weeks. MR. VOLLARO-And looking at that 125 foot centerline to centerline, and taking a look at the peak hour traffic, it says in our Code anything greater than 300 should have a spacing of 550 feet. So we’ve got to look at that. We really have to look at that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, would there be a sidewalk from the hotel down to Route 9? MR. LAPPER-Yes. You asked for that, or George asked for that, and we will add that to the plan. MR. MAC ELROY-It’s shown on the revised plan. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it’s on the revised plan here. You’ve got to be able to look at this plan to answer the question. MR. LAPPER-Guests have to be able to get to Martha’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Stormwater. Sewage design. Anybody got questions relative to stormwater? MR. VOLLARO-I just have one. Our Code talks about a 50 year plan. You go up to a 200 year, a 100 year plan. I haven’t seen the numbers in here for a 50 year event. MR. LAPPER-Well, if you cover a 100. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the answer? Is that why you don’t have a 50 year event in here, because you’ve gone to a 100 year event, is that the answer? MR. HUNSINGER-I just had kind of a general question on sewer. Would you have proposed this project if sewer was not being extended up Route 9? Is this project feasible if that were not? MR. MENTER-The project has been, we’ve anticipated this project for quite a while. That was certainly one factor that made it easier to go forward with the plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I was just curious. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MENTER-It’s not a yes or no, but it’s certainly a contributing factor somewhat. MR. VOLLARO-Dennis, does your software package have a 50 year event capability in it? MR. MAC ELROY-Yes, it could, yes. MR. VOLLARO-To go along with our 179, would you do that? Just run a 50 year event? MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m assuming no questions on sewage, potable water? Flood plains, detention, retention ponds? MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve already kind of talked about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Lighting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have quite a bit on, not quite a bit, but. MR. LAPPER-We’re going to resubmit the lighting to be completely in conformance with the Town standards, but there was one issue that George wasn’t sure, when he saw the design, whether it was a cut off fixture, and it is. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try to help in this whole area, particularly for the engineering side of the house here. If you look at our, I’m going to be asking Staff and the Town to take a, from here on out, another hard look at our lighting, because I think we need to redo it. I don’t think it’s right. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t start now, Robert. I’m just coming on stream with it. MR. VOLLARO-I know. If you take a look at our lighting requirement, in certain areas we go from one foot candle, in some parking areas, two and a half. We’re not consistent in that area. So, I’m saying, in order to get a four to one ratio, Dennis, which is what I’m always going to be looking at, probably we’d get something in the area of 1.75, as an average on the whole lot, with approximately .6 as the min, then, from there I get my four to one ratio. Four to one ratio is defined as the average divided by the min. Okay. So, that’s what I’m always going to be looking at, to achieve that four to one ratio, because there’s a reason why we’re looking at that, and that has to do with these two things being able to come off a high lit area into a very dark area, like a road. MR. MAC ELROY-Now when you speak of the min, where does that min, where do you compute the min, at the edge of the parking lot? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC ELROY-Or as that zeros out? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know it does, but there’s a min/max. If you look at some of the other. MR. MAC ELROY-Well, it’s on our chart as well on that sheet, there’s a min/max. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got a min of .6. That’s fine, but you’ve got an average of 5.5 and that gives me a ratio of well over four to one. MR. LAPPER-We’re going to reduce the wattage and get that down. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-So you’ll provide us with the cut sheets on all the lighting fixtures that I think Staff had noted in their comments. Also you will be able to do us a lighting plan showing us the illumination? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-An illumination grid, is that what you’re going to supply us? MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. MR. LAPPER-We have supplied the cut sheets in the response letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions relative to lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. One of the interesting comments on the February 19 lighting plan, th you didn’t show any lighting at all on the south side of the hotel. Including the pool area. MR. MAC ELROY-The pool area, correct. That’s updated. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-There is lighting. MR. HUNSINGER-I figured there would be, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions relative to lighting? Landscaping? MR. VOLLARO-I think George brought up something on the landscaping, that there was an inconsistency in the landscaping. MR. HILTON-It was brought up by Tom, but I can clarify, I can answer that question. The Code for street landscaping says one tree for every 250 feet. However, if you look at the diagram for the Route 9 guidelines, it does reference trees 35 feet on center. So, they’re inconsistent, obviously, and the Planning Board has the ability to. MR. MAC EWAN-With other properties on Route 9, we’ve been doing the 35 feet centerlines, to be consistent. MR. LAPPER-Certainly we’ll do the 35 feet. Dennis did look it up and found the 250. That’s why. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll be consistent. Any other questions relative to landscaping? MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, my only thought, I don’t know if it could be done at all, is to try to, I think you are maintaining as much of the existing vegetation as you can. It might be nice to see some more, but I don’t know how you would do that. It is a pretty heavily wooded site. You can see from the map. MR. LAPPER-We tried to keep it where it would have the most impact, in terms of shielding both the building, so they’re not looking at the cars on Round Pond, and vice versa. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Overall, I like the layout. I think it was well thought out, as far as having the parking in the rear of the building. It’s nice. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I like that effect as well. Good planning. MR. LAPPER-Dave was trying to have, the concept was to have the most quiet location on the site for his guests, rather than to have the hotel most visible for people driving by. MR. MAC EWAN-It makes a lot of sense. Questions relative to anything having to do with environmental, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors? Is there anything archeological that we should be aware of in this portion of Town? MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t know. I could certainly, between now and the next time, go back and look at the information we have. My understanding is no, but I guess I don’t know, and I will look into it. MR. HUNSINGER-We just got that letter from Marilyn on The Great Escape project, which is only across the street. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what triggered me to ask the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Neighborhood character? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Highway Commercial. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions I might have missed? Anything you gentlemen wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. We understand what additional information you’re looking for. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you to give up the table for a minute. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BILL TUCKER MR. TUCKER-Bill Tucker, Glen Lake Road. Will these plans be open for review by the public? I mean, can I come down tomorrow and look at them? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. What’s the policy? I mean, if somebody comes in to the Planning Department, they can look at plans in the Planning Department? MR. HILTON-They can come down and look at them. They’re available for public review. MR. MAC EWAN-If you wanted a copy to take home, or something like that, I’m assuming you’d have to do a FOIL request and then it’s going to take you probably a couple, two, three days to get a full set of plans. MR. TUCKER-But I can just come in and look at them? MR. MAC EWAN-You can come in and look at them any time from eight to four thirty. MR. HILTON-Eight to four thirty. MR. TUCKER-Okay. Thank you. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open. Why don’t we do this. Let’s take a five minute recess, and, Robert and Chris, maybe put your heads together. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d rather not. I never got the C.T. Male letter. The one that came in today’s mail. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert and Tom. Come up with a laundry list of things that they need to do. How’s that? Okay. We’re ready to convene, re-convene, I should say. Why don’t you just run down your motions for everybody on the Board, so we’re all on the same page here. MR. VOLLARO-And also for the applicant. The thing we’re going to put in, for the tabling motion, would be we want a 50 year storm plan, a 35 foot centerline from tree to tree on Route 9, just in conformance with the Route 9 design guidelines. You might want to refer to Figure 11. That might help you out some, I don’t know. Lighting conform to Town Code. Dennis, just keep four to one in mind, okay. I’d like to have a C.T. Male signoff on their letter of 19 March, too, your responses to them. We have a note in here about having C.T. Male review the traffic info. We’ve got a lot of traffic information here, that we’ve been given, DOT’s traffic information, and I don’t know whether we ought to have C.T. Male review that or not. I certainly can’t get what I want out of this information on Route 9. What I’m really looking for is the $64 question, when does the nth car stop traffic on Route 9? MR. MAC EWAN-C.T. Male has gotten all the traffic. I mean, if C.T. Male got a copy of this packet, that stuff would have been in there. Right? Or wrong? MR. HILTON-Well, this evening, the applicant handed me a letter from Creighton Manning, which we will distribute to you and we will distribute to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s valid to have C.T. Male look at traffic information. We’d like to have a visual impact from Route 9, which is very, very similar to the visual impact that you’ve put on your drawing from Round Pond Road. MR. LAPPER-You just want another section view. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, coming down Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Get a minimum. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. A color rendering of the building and the material to be used, and that’s the end of the list, unless somebody on the Board has something else they want to talk about. MR. MAC ELROY-How much different from this rendering? MR. SANFORD-How do we address curb cuts and traffic lighting, in terms of this tabling motion? You were silent on that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, we talked about it, and we stayed silent because there’s obviously a DOT Town, something, Great Escape, looking at both this intersection and the intersection to the north at Glen Lake. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s two ways it can be facilitated. Number One, they know what this Board’s position is right now, that we’re supportive of eliminating that additional curb cut that comes out on Route 9, funnel everything through their interconnect in their own lot and then funnel it out via Round Pond Road. They’ve gotten that message. If they choose not to want to revise their plans accordingly, that’s up to them. However, the vehicle to all this, to use a traffic 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) spinoff, is when we do SEQRA, impact on traffic. The only way that I see that it’s going to be mitigated at this point, in discussing it, and things may change, things may not, is that I feel more comfortable eliminating that, from a SEQRA standpoint, from a traffic hazard standpoint, and this Board has that authority to do that. If we condition the site plan with elimination of curb cut on Route 9, so be it. MR. SANFORD-No. My only concern is that the applicant’s approaching, may be approaching, DOT in a very singular manner, and I suspect, going back to Great Escape just for 30 seconds, they may have talked about a traffic light on Glen Lake Road, but with the presumption being it was going to remain a perpendicular situation rather than an intersection. So DOT said, well, a traffic light’s not warranted. Well, that’s not the total picture and, here, you know, this applicant, if they talked with them, viewing just this hotel, it’s not warranted. Cumulative effects. MR. MAC EWAN-See, the key thing here is that we’re in a very unique position because we’re looking at the cumulative impacts at this corridor. The expansion proposed at The Great Escape, this particular one here, we know what’s happening here, and I think we see the bigger picture that DOT may not necessarily have seen, but keep in mind, DOT’s approval letter was March the 5. That was before all these talks started happening. th MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So there is a process that’s evolving right now as we speak, and I think everyone’s getting on board. It’s just a matter of pulling all the strings together. MR. VOLLARO-I have a comment on that, Mr. Chairman. In this letter from DOT, there’s reference to a Mr. Frank Polmareski of the Warren County Residency. Do we have a DOT resident person in Warren County now? MR. LAPPER-He’s a maintenance engineer. That’s not a design engineer. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, I think in the tabling motion, just for the record, or maybe the minutes speak for themselves, but you might want to put down applicant should consider revisiting curb cuts, and then they could do with it what they want, but I would like to go on record that when we did initial review, and we gave a laundry list, that we at least included it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s a valid issue. Sheet One, is there an update on this Sheet, Dennis? MR. MAC ELROY-There should be a revision in the title block. MR. VOLLARO-Revision date. MR. MAC ELROY-It would be today. MR. VOLLARO-3/22. MR. MAC ELROY-Yesterday. MR. VOLLARO-This is just, applicant shall review curb cuts shown on Sheet One, Rev. 3/22. So there’s a reference some place in there to that. Okay. MR. HILTON-Before you begin, are we tabling this to a specific date, or are we going under the understanding that? MR. MAC EWAN-No, not with the long list of stuff that they’ve got to do. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. HILTON-Okay. I just wanted to clarify. So in other words, if the information were, for some reason, in by April 15, the deadline day, we’d treat it that way. Is that how we’re going th to do it? Where is you met the next submission deadline, let’s say all the information came in by April 15. You’d be placed on in May, evidently. That’s what I’m hearing. So, and if not, th you’d be subject to the next deadline. I guess you’re just back in the deadline cycle in terms of submitting your revised information. MR. LAPPER-We don’t view anything as a big deal, what you’re asking for. We’ll take care of it quickly. MR. VOLLARO-All right. On that note, I would like to make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2004, DAVID MENTER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: For the applicant to provide the following information: 1. A 50 year storm plan, 2. A 35 foot centerline for trees along Route 9 in accordance with the Route 9 Design Corridor, particularly check Figure II, 3. Lighting to conform to Town Code, 4. CT Male Sign-off on their letter of March 19, 2004 in response to the applicant’s response to that letter, 5. I would like to have C. T. Male review the traffic information that has been provided to them by Staff, 6. A visual impact from Route 9, similar to the drawing that is on Sheet 2 now showing the visual impact from Round Pond Road, 7. A color rendering of the building and material used, -1- 8. The applicant shall review curb cuts shown on Sheet 1 revised 3/22/04. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You’re very welcome, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Two notes. Regular cast of characters going to be here Thursday night? MR. SEGULJIC-I won’t be. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we doing the balloons tests on Saturday? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/23/04) MR. MAC EWAN-Nine o’clock they’re going to go up. You can go up as you want. We’ll have more information Thursday night, but they’re going to do like an informal dog and pony show, so to speak, up there in the parking lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You can go if you want to, but this is more to benefit the ZBA than us. You’re certainly welcome to go. More information will come out Thursday night. Anything else? We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 55