Fowler Square PUD Application 4) MEYER FULLER
LLC-
LIKI: GEoR(ii.
wig
1 40, 12 I
Attorneys Retired
I Matthew F. Fuller, Esq. �£�, ,� t� Howard I. Krantz, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Meyer, Esq.
Mary-Ellen E.Stockwell, Esq. 4AUG
+ WEE 1 �5 L`
August 17, 2015 • �� K O F/C ",,
I Hon. John Strough, Supervisor / ! ,�3,�C .<�
g ;
p
Town Board, Town of Queensbury
I 742 Bay Road
Queensbury,New York 12804
I Re: Applicant: Queensbury Partners, LLC
Project: Fowler Square Planned Unit Development
Location: Southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads, Queensbury
ITax Map Nos: 289.19-1-23 through 35, inclusive
Dear Supervisor Strough and Town Board Members:
6 As you know, our firm is counsel to Queensbury Partners, LLC,the owner of property located in
the Office Zone in the Town of Queensbury. I am following up relative to the workshops and
Town Board meetings concerning the potential for a PUD in the Office Zone. As noted by
Supervisor Strough at the recent workshops and Town Board meetings,the Board has been
advised by Town Counsel that it can proceed with the review of a PUD regardless of density
language in the Town's Zoning Code and notwithstanding any moratorium to the contrary. As
Isuch and in accordance with that advice from Town counsel,we are submitting the enclosed
application materials for a PUD on the Queensbury Partners, LLC property at the corner of Bay
and Blind Rock Roads in the Town.
To that end, I enclose herewith the following:
I - Application (note that we have utilized the Zoning Amendment application submitted
with materials per Article 12 of Chapter 179 of the Town Code;
Application includes:
E o ZBA record of resolution August 22, 2013;
o Planning Board determination August 23, 2013;
o Excerpt of Planning Board minutes April 23,2013 for negative SEQRA
declaration;
I
It �.__AyA h S" /A,tE ,L.- c'-E N Y 9 8=35 -11i-I 1,A- ,',),I
I
2
o Excerpt of Planning Board minutes August 27, 2013 for confirmation of
negative SEQRA declaration;
o Map of adjoining uses;
o Water approval;
o Utility Evaluation;
o Traffic Impact Study;
o December 15, 2011 density calculations;
o Decision and Order in Matter of Sonnabend et al v. Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals et al.
- Check for$250; and
- Site development stats;
Fowler Square Planned Unit Development plans, stats and specifications include the
following:
o L1.1-L1.3, Site Preparation and Erosion Control Plan
o L1.4, Site Phasing Plan
o L2.1-L2.3, Site Layout and Materials Plan
o L3.1-3.3, Site Grading and Drainage Plan
o L4.1-L4.3 Site Utility Plan
o L4.4, Sanitary Sewer Profile
o L5.1-L5.3, Site Landscape Plan
o L6.1-L6.3, Site Lighting and Photometric Plan
o L7, Site Details
o L8, Site Details
o L9,Utility Details
o L10, Drainage Details
o L11,Drainage Details
o L12,Drainage Details
Understanding that pursuant to Article 12 of Chapter 179, the application must be forwarded to
the Planning Board,we hereafter turn and address the criteria and review under Article 12 of
Chapter 179 of the Town Code.
SEORA
As the Board is aware,the Planning Board in the prior review acted as lead agency. Though the
opponents successfully challenged parts of the Planning Board determination, they did not
challenge the Planning Board's SEQRA determination, nor did they challenge the coordinated
review. Inasmuch as this proposed planned unit development is entirely identical to the prior
proposal,which again we note was arrived at through the joint work of the Planning Board,
members of the Town Board, and the ZBA, in accordance with SEQRA,we do not see any need
to reopen the SEQRA process. The prior negative declaration, which we have provided
herewith,remains valid and binding. If needed, the Town Board is free to affirm this negative
declaration.
I
I
Pagc 13
Article 12 of Chapter 179 (Zoning) of the Town of Queensbury Town Code
§179-12-020, General Requirements
Pursuant to §179-12-020, General Requirements, we offer the following:
A. Ownership. The tract of land for a project may be owned, leased or controlled either
by a single person or corporation, or by a group of individuals or corporations. An
application must be filed by the owner or jointly by owners of all property included in
a project. In the case of multiple ownership, the approved plan shall be binding on all
owners.
Response: The property will be entirely owned by one entity with the exception of
the"south parcel"which the property owner reserves the right to convey to a future
purchaser depending on interest. That is, if a future developer seeks a large office
and wants to own that office on their own parcel, we would like to reserve the right to
convey that parcel to a third party who would also have rights over the internal roads.
We would recommend that such future option be subject to Town Board approval, as
with any planned unit development, and of course such project would likely require
site plan approval from the planning board as well.
B. Minimum area. The minimum area for a PUD shall be 30 contiguous acres of land.
The Town Board may consider projects of lesser acreage where the applicant can
demonstrate that the characteristics of his holdings meet the purposes and objectives
of this article.
Response: At 34.050 acres,the parcel satisfies this requirement.
C. Residential density. Base residential density (BRD) in a PUD is that density as
permitted in the original district or districts in the current Zoning Ordinance. The
residential density allowed in a PUD (PUD density)shall not exceed 100%of the
original base residential density except as set forth below.
Response: At 142 units, the project complies with the density requirements and
limitations.
Also,please note that we are NOT seeking available density bonuses under §179-12-
020(c)(2). We note this simply for the record to head off any suggestion that
Queensbury Partners, LLC seeks a PUD for purposes of increasing residential
density. That is not the case, is not the plan, and will not be sought by Queensbury
Partners, LLC for this PUD.
Moreover,though we note opponents challenged the site plan review and the 300 foot
setback portion of the ZBA's variances,we note that the opponents did not challenge
I) ag 4
the density as determined by the Town's Zoning Administrator, Craig Brown. The
opposition did challenge the inclusion of the land within 300 feet of Bay Road within
the density calculations, but correctly so,the Court denied those claims noting"this
disputed 300 foot area may properly be included in the overall density calculation
Iand this portion of the petition is denied". See Decision at page 9 of 14. We are
providing herewith both the base density calculations made by the Town and planning
staff in December of 2011, as well as the Court's decision in this regard.
As such,the densitycalculations stand as applicable to this site.
pp
D. Nonresidential density. Nonresidential densities may not exceed 20%of the total
residential square footage in a PUD.
Response: At 56,180 square feet of office/retail space,the project complies with the
requirements of§179-12-020(d). Note however, that with this particular project, the
density was calculated"commercial first". That is,based on calculations with the
Town's zoning and planning staff,the commercial and residential square footages
allowable in the district were calculated. That said, the project still meets the
Irequirements of the Office Zone and Article 12 of Chapter 179.
E. Allowed use.Any type of residential use is permitted within a PUD, subject to the
base density provisions in Subsection C above. Only those nonresidential uses which
are compatible with the residential portion of the proposal as well as compatible with
the existing neighborhood or general area are permitted within a PUD, subject to the
base density provisions in Subsection D above.
Response: Suggested uses are convenience store, coffee shop, food service, small
retail,personal service, general office, and bank. We believe as per the prior
approvals that these uses are complimentary to the residential uses, and vice versa.
F. All homes and townhouses shall be ENERGY STAR qualified homes, meaning they
meet guidelines for energy efficiency set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Response: Buildings will be Energy Star qualified.
G. All other buildings, including multifamily buildings, shall be "designed to earn
ENERGY STAR,"meaning they meet guidelines for energy efficiency set by the
IUnited States Environmental Protection Agency.
Response: Again, all buildings will be designed to meet energy star compliance.
I
I
Page 15
H. Open space ownership. The type of ownership of any land that set aside for open
space shall be selected by the applicant, subject to the approval of the Town Board,
and shall be indicated on the final plat.
Response: All open space shall be owned by the project developer as the owner of
one of the lots. This complies with §179-12-020(H)(4).
§179-12-010 Intent and Objectives
Pursuant to §179-12-010, Intent and Objectives,we offer the following:
Objectives. In order to carry out the intent of this article, the Planning Board shall consider the
following objectives and find that the following objectives are satisfied by the project proposed
pursuant to this article in order to issue a favorable report to the Town Board as provided in §
179-12-050:
(1) Whether the project provides a choice in the types of environment, occupancy tenure
(e.g., individual ownership, condominium leasing), types of housing and sizes and
community facilities available to existing and potential residents at all economic
levels.
Response: The residential aspects of the project will be scaled based on the location
of the units within the development. For example, the individual units to the western
portion of the property will likely command a different rent structure than those
above the commercial spaces. We believe this fits within the demand for housing in
this area of the Town as well as permits greater economic flexibility with the
commercial space in the development.
(2) Whether the project provides more usable open space and recreation and the linkage
of open space areas.
Open space recreation areas are provided by linking sidewalks within the
development and open areas usable by tenants within the development. In general,
there are no other sidewalks in this area of Town, but the project is designed such that
links can easily be established should future neighboring developments incorporate
such links. In particular, thoughts turn to the college property across Bay Road as
well as the Town's property located diagonally from the project site. Both properties
should focus future efforts to connecting to the walkable portions of the project site to
expand recreational opportunities and walkable communities. The project factors in
these potential future improvements with the existing design.
(3) Whether the project provides more convenience to residents in the location of
manufacturing, commercial and service areas, if applicable.
Response: As noted, the project includes sidewalks to permit pedestrian access and
walkable community considerations. These improvements will permit easy access to
commercial and service areas within the development.
I
I) a gc 16
(4) Whether the project provides for the preservation of trees, outstanding natural
topographic and geologic features and prevention of soil erosion.
Response: No outstanding topographic or geologic features were noted,but the
project does preserve substantial vegetation along the western boundary including the
wetland areas. Buffers will be maintained to minimize impact to neighboring
properties and no neighbors voiced any concern with the planting and landscaping
proposals before the planning board and ZBA.
(5) Whether the project provides for a creative use of land and related physical
development which allows an orderly transition of land.
Response: The project has been shaped in working with members of the Town Board,
Planning Board and ZBA to work within the existing site,particularly the natural
features and coordination with neighboring uses. For example,the internal roads
have been partnered with neighboring uses across Blind Rock Road to provide for
orderly ingress and egress, and emergency access further west on Blind Rock Road
has been suggested so that there is better flow of internal traffic and less conflict with
traffic on public roads. The project has been shaped based on the natural features
within the development including the substantial beneficial wetlands within the
property. These features will be supplemented based on the landscaping plans and in
keeping with the current physical layout of the property.
(6) Whether the project provides for an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks
of utilities and services, thereby lowering housing costs.
Response: Utilities are internally planned with minimum upkeep and maintenance in
mind. Plans L4.1L4.3 show the plans as proposed.
(7) Whether the project provides a development pattern in harmony with the objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan.
fI Response: The development pattern is in harmony with the comprehensive plan.
Within the office zone, a mix of high density residential, as well as office,
professional, and limited commercial uses is envisioned. This project includes all of
those facets,and with the southern portion of the property, also maintains space
available for a larger commercial office type employer. We believe this is precisely
in keeping with the vision of the Town for this area.
(8) Whether the project provides a more desirable environment than would be possible
through the strict application of other articles of this chapter.
Response: This is precisely why a PUD is more desirable for this project. As noted,
the project was the result of substantial input and shaping from members of the Town
Board, Planning Board and ZBA. A very small minority of opponents saw fit to
I
I
1= age; 17
challenge the development based on a technicality within the Zoning Law and not in
keeping with how the Town itself interpreted its own Zoning Law. The proposal
allows the project to proceed as the Town envisioned,while not necessarily upsetting
any precedential effect of the Court determination. In that regard, it is a win-win for
the Town as well as the project sponsor. The Town receives a significant beneficial
project that it helped shape, while the project sponsor finally can proceed with
economic benefit from its now exceedingly investment in its property.
(9) Whether the project provides scenic vistas, historic sites, and prevents disruption of
natural drainage patterns.
Response: No impacts to drainage patterns or historic sites were noted in the review
process, including review and sign off by archeologists. The project actually factors
in the scenic vistas to the East. To the West, no such vistas are impacted by the
proposed project.
(10) Whether the project utilizes landscaping and building design to present a sense of
community, of integrated color schemes, architectural styles and layout.
Response: This too is one of the significant benefits of the project. The `look' and
`feel' of the buildings was a significant part of the discussion before the Planning
Board in particular. The Planning Board voiced significant support for the
architecture to be employed. The landscaping, sidewalks, outdoor seating cafes and
similar features provide the"village"type feel sought by the Planning Board as well
as members of the Town Board and ZBA. In short, yes, we feel we have completely
satisfied this consideration.
(11) Whether the project brings nonresidential services to underserved parts of the
Town.
Response: We believe this too is precisely served by this proposed project. The
northeast side of Town has not generally been as served by mixed commercial-office
uses. Indeed, for cafes and restaurants, the closest services are down Bay Road and
one up on Ridge Road near Oneida corners. The proposed project includes options
for all such nonresidential services that will be filled based on demand for the space.
As noted on the plans, space is available for banking, restaurant/food service, smaller
type retail establishments,offices and the like. This is precisely what a PUD should
accomplish, and given the approvals of the Planning Board and ZBA,we believe we
have accomplished those goals.
§179-12-030 Considerations
Pursuant to §179-12-030, Considerations,we offer the following:
A. The need for the proposed land use in the proposed location.
I
I
1' aYc18
Response: The services proposed are needed in this area of the Town. In short,there is
demand for higher quality apartments on the residential side, and we believe that the
smaller office/commercial/retail spaces with the flexibility in sizing proposed, will meet
current demand. For services, again,we believe the commercial services such as limited
food service would thrive on this side of Town. We know of no similar outdoor seating
type foodservice on this side of Town,particularly with the views and atmosphere that
can be offered in this area of the Town.
B. The availability and adequacy of water service.
Response: Per letter dated April 25, 2013 as well as the utilities evaluation provided by
the LA Group,both included in the application materials, adequate water is on site.
C. The availability and adequacy of sanitary waste disposal facilities.
Response: Though much controversy has surrounded sewer along Bay Road,the Town's
most recent July 2015 sewer evaluation by MJ Engineering and Land Surveying,PC has
concluded that adequate capacity exists for approved projects and contracted users.
Fowler Square is both an approved project, and it is a prior contracted property that is
within the bounds of the sewer district.
Moreover,the MJ Engineering and Land Surveying, PC report noted that the capacity of
the sewer system along Bay Road can be safely increased without downstream impacts
for a cost of around $50,000. As has been noted in the past, and now represented in
writing, Queensbury Partners, LLC will dedicate the sum of$50,000 towards the sewer
improvements noted in the July 2015 MJ Engineering and Land Surveying, PC report.
Thus, this cost will not be borne by the users in the district. With that contribution,we
note that not only will the project sponsors have paid to upgrade the pump station,but
they have already paid to install the sewer line to the Bay/Blind Rock intersection that
has directly benefitted the Town office complex and also the residents of Surrey Fields.
As such, the project sponsor has more than mitigated any increased contribution of sewer
flow from the Fowler Square project.
D. The availability and adequacy of transportation systems, including the impact on the
road network.
Response: The traffic impact study offered by Queensbury Partners, LLC, together with
the improvements already made, and the turning lane to be installed, offer large scale
improvements to existing transportation at the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock roads.
The traffic study noted no further impacts, and indeed resulting improvements, from the
changes suggested. Though the traffic study did not recommend a turning lane on Blind
Rock Road, Queensbury Partners, LLC has nonetheless agreed to install one as requested
by the Planning Board.
I
1' agc 19
E. The pedestrian circulation and open space in relation to structures, throughout the
proposed development, and as part of an adjoining or future connecting Townwide open
and linear pathway system.
Response: As noted above, internal sidewalks with the potential to connect to
neighboring property uses have been proposed on the plans. This keeps open future
connectivity, while also providing orderly pedestrian access within the site.
F. The character of the neighborhood in which the PUD is being proposed, including the
safeguards provided to minimize possible detrimental effects of the proposed use on
adjacent properties and the neighborhood in general.
Response: The project proposes maintaining significant vegetation along the western
boundary. In addition, the buildings have been located along Blind Rock Road in an
effort to maintain views of the professional office immediately across Blind Rock Road.
In terms of the character of the neighborhood,the neighborhood includes other high
density residential apartments, offices,town facilities, and single family residential across
Bay Road. The project is a mix of similar uses and will not conflict with the
neighborhood.
G. The height and mass of buildings and their relation to other structures in the vicinity.
Response: Height had been a discussion at the ZBA and Planning Board meetings, and
the height of the buildings has been decreased in working with those boards to better
reflect uses in the area. Comparable uses discussed included the college buildings across
Bay Road. The buildings should not conflict with adjoining uses in the vicinity of the
project site.
H. Potential impacts on local government services.
Response: There are no readily apparent impacts on local government services.
I. Potential impacts on environmental resources, including wetlands, surface water,
floodplains, and plant and wildlife communities.
Response: The project has been proposed with a view towards minimal impacts to the
wetlands. The project received a negative declaration from the Planning Board acting as
lead agent. No impacts to floodplains or plant and wildlife communities have been
identified.
J. The general ability of the land to support the development, including such factors as
slope, depth to bedrock, depth to water table and soil type.
Response: No issues with slopes, depth to bedrock or depth to water table have been
noted. Initial perc rates for stormwater have been more than acceptable given the
sandy/loamy soils on site.
I
I
Pagel 10
K. Other factors as may be deemed appropriate by the Town Board.
Response: We will gladly respond to any factors raised by the Town Board.
§179-12-050 Application Materials
Pursuant to §179-12-050, relative to application materials, we offer the following:
(1) Sketch plan drawing. The application shall include a sketch plan drawn to scale,
though it need not be to the precision of a finished engineering drawing, and it shall
clearly show the following information:
(a) The location of the various uses and their areas.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(b) The general outlines of the interior roadways system and all existing
rights-of-way and easements, whether public or private.
{ Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(c) Delineation of the various residential areas.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(d) The interior open space system.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3.
(e) The overall drainage system.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L3.1-3.3.
(f) If grades exceed 3%or portions of the site have a moderate to high
susceptibility to erosion or a moderate to high susceptibility to flooding
and ponding, a topographic map showing contour intervals of not more
than five feet of elevation, along with an overlay outlining the above
susceptible soil areas, if any. If grades are less than 3%, the topographic
map may be at ten foot contour intervals.
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans and no areas noted for
susceptibility to flooding. See L2.1-2.3 &L3.1-3.3.
(g) Principal ties to the community at large with respect to transportation
(pedestrian and vehicular), water supply and sewage disposal.
I
I
PREC ( 11
Response: Supplied on the sketch plans. See L2.1-2.3, L7, L8 and Traffic
Impact Study.
(h) General description of the provisions of other community facilities, such
as schools,fire protection services and cultural facilities, if any, and some
indication of how these needs are proposed to be accommodated.
Response: The applicant has previously coordinated with the fire
department resulting in the suggested emergency access along Blind Rock
Road. No impacts to schools or other community facilities have been
noted or voiced.
(i) A location map showing uses and ownership of abutting lands.
Response: Supplied on the adjoining parcels map in the application
documents.
(j) A long form environmental assessment form.
Response: Not supplied, neg dec already issued.
(2) Additional sketch plan documentation. In addition, the following documentation shall
accompany the sketch plan:
(a) Evidence of how the developer's particular mix of land uses meets existing
community demands.
Response: Discussed above.
(b) A general statement as to how common open space is to be owned and
maintained.
Response: Discussed above.
(c) If the development is to be staged, a general indication of how the staging
is to proceed. Whether or not the development is to be staged, the sketch
plan of this section shall show the intended total project.
Response: Staging plan provided.
(d) How the plan is in conformance with the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
Response: Discussed above.
(e) Evidence of the applicant's physical and financial competence to carry out
the plan and his awareness of the scope of such a project.
I
I
Pag,c 112
Response: The applicant would be happy to provide whatev
er financial
information the board might request. However, we note to date that we
have installed a sewer line at our expense, and have financed countless
engineering plans, specifications, and also funded a more than a year long
legal battle. We do not believe the applicant's finances are in question.
(f) A draft Zoning Ordinance amendment applicable to the project for review
by the Town Board. The draft shall identify all amendments to the
ordinance required by the PUD.
Response: Enclosed herewith.
(g) A fiscal impact analysis identifying projected short- and long-term
impacts on municipal and school district budgets.
Response: No impacts to the Town's or school's budgets have been
expressed. In the past, some opponents attempted to use the school budget
by implying that people who live in apartments have more children than
those living in single family residences,which statements have been
disproven ad nauseam.
Conclusion.
Queensbury Partners, LLC has addressed every question posed to it in the review process of this
project. We started with a compliant project, and proceeded down the Town's path of a project
with a more village/community center type feel. Many variances piled up, and were then
whittled down to but two that were acceptable to the ZBA. Now the project remains in the Court
system,where it will likely remain regardless of the outcome of the pending case,when the
parties factor in likely appeals. The PUD process permits the project as ultimately shaped by the
Town Board, Planning Board and ZBA. Town counsel has passed on this process as well.
The time has come for the Town Board to act to permit this project to proceed. There are some
that will never accept any development at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Roads. That is
irrational. The property owners have invested literally millions of dollars in this project. The
owners ran the sewer line that the Town has specifically benefitted from, at no cost to the Town.
That line was installed to accommodate development on this property. Indeed, even with this
development, there is capacity within that line to accommodate even out of district users. Would
changes be required downstream for out of district users? Likely yes. However, the Town
cannot continue to hold hostage a development that the Town actively worked to shape while out
of district users decide, again, whether or not they want to connect or whether or not they
approve of the project.
In reviewing the Planned Unit Development criteria,this project satisfies all of those criteria,
considerations, and application requirements. Indeed, what the Planning Board, Town Board,
and ZBA ultimately proceeded through was a planned unit development review.
I
I
13
Please approve this amendment to the Town's Zoning Law and allow the Fowler Square Planned
Unit Development to proceed.
We thank the Board for its consideration of this project.
Sincerely,
Matthew F. Fuller
mfuller@meyerfuller.com
Enclosures
I
I
I
I
Revised Oct. 2008
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD APPLICATION
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
Petition No. (Office Use Only):
Applicant's Name: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
Address: 269 Ballard Road, Wilton, NY 12831
To the Applicant:
The Queensbury Planning Board will review this Petition and make recommendations to the
Town Board. As part of this review, the Planning Board will consider the following questions and
submit answers to the Town Board. As the applicant, you will have the option to provide
answers for the Boards to consider.
The following questions have been cut and pasted and answered in the letter of Matthew
F. Fuller, Esq., counsel to the applicants, submitted with this request.
1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?
2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?
4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone?
5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities?
6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question?
•
7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use
Master Plan?
9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal?
These questions are based on criteria used to review all zoning amendments.
Application Petition for Change of Zone
The applicant must submit a fee of$250 with the original & seventeen (17) copies of all
documentation requested in this application to the Town Clerk's office. [Copies are distributed
as follows: Town Board (5), Town Clerk (1), Town Counsel (1), Planning Board (9), File Copy
(1), and Planning Staff(1).
Petition No. (Office Use Only):
Date Received by Town Clerk:
Date Received by Planning Office:
1. Application For: (check where applicable)
Amendment of Zoning Map
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance X Planned Unit Development
2. Current Zoning: OFFICE
Proposed Zoning: OFFICE
3. Project Location:CORNER OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK ROADS, QUEENSBURY,
4. Tax Map ID: 289.19-1-23 through 35
5. Applicant: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
Address: 269 Ballard Road, Wilton, NY 12831
Phone: c/o agent: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., 668-2199
6. Applicant's Agent: Meyer& Fuller, PLLC, Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., counsel
Address: 161 Ottawa Street, Lake George, NY 12845
Phone: 518-668-2199
7. Property Owner: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
Address: 269 Ballard Road, Wilton, NY 12831
Phone: c/o agent: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., 668-2199
8. Directions to Site: Quaker Road, north to Bay, property is at corner of Bay and Blind
Rock Roads, diagonal from Town Hall.
9. Statistics and Data on Property:
a. Total Area: 34.050 acres
I
b. Dimensions:
Minimum Width: +/ 1200 feet
Average Width: +/- 1000 feet
Minimum Depth: +/- 1160 feet
Average Depth: +/- 1000 feet
Physical Irregularities (describe): There is a wetland to the southwest corner. The physical
acreage has been deducted from the development calculations as per the town's zoning
law.
c. Existing use(s): include structures, outdoor uses, rights of way, easements, deeds and
limitations to use of property: NONE.
d. Adjacent uses within 400 feet: (state direction, location, use, zone & owner): Note-
distances are approximate from boundary of property and as per warren county gis
mapping. Residential: +/-237 feet from western boundary, +/- 100 feet from apartments
along blind rock; commercial: +/- 100 feet from commercial along blind rock; +/- 125 feet
from commercial/residential along bay road.
e. State, County or Town property within 500 feet: Town Hall, Town Of Queensbury, Bay
1 Road and Blind Rock Roads are County Highways
10. A Map/Survey of the property to be rezoned must be submitted with the application; items A
through H must be included on the plan and addressed in the submission
A. Map of property at a scale of 1 inch = 40 feet or less with scale, north arrow and
topography. INCLUDED.
B. Boundaries of property with dimensions in feet, including zoning boundary.
INCLUDED.
C. Identification of wetlands, watercourses or waterbodies on site. INCLUDED.
D. Location of any current structures on site, their exterior dimensions, use and
setbacks. NOT APPLICABLE.
E. Location of any proposed easements and driveways. INCLUDED.
F. Location of existing public or private water and sewer facilities. INCLUDED.
G. Location of existing and proposed parking and loading facilities. INCLUDED.
H. Identification of uses (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial) on property within 500
feet. INCLUDED.
11. If Petition is for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance, cite the section(s)to be changed, and
wording to be substituted: Planned Unit Development Application per Art. 12 of
Chapter 149 of Town Code and Section 261 of NY Town Law.
1
I
I
12. In support of this petition, the following statement is made: Please see the letter from
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., counsel to applicants, submitted with this application.
13. The following documents are submitted herewith:
- Survey Map.
- Adjacent Uses Map (from Warren County GIS).
- Letter from counsel to Applicant.
- Signature Page .
- Plans and Specifications.
- Long EAF with prior SEQRA determination.
I
I
I
I
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
FOLLOW- UP RESOLUTION
August 22,2013
TO: Queensbury Partners, LLC PROJECT FOR: Queensbury Partners, LLC
426 Dix Avenue southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds.
Queensbury, NY 12804 Proposal: Fowler Square
Area Variance No. 61-2011
Your application, after review and consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals,was:
_X_ Approved. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval.
You may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time
frame has expired. See section 179-14-090
A copy of the resolution is attached.
Additional requirements and review for this project shall include:
Zoning Office
_X_ See approval conditions in resolution.
_X_ Submit four (4) copies of the approved plan depicting all changes and conditions
of the approval as adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please bring the
plans to the Zoning Office for the Zoning Administrator's signature. These plans will
need to be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
_X_ Please contact Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer at 761-8226 within 30 days
of the ZBA approval date for a site inspection before any work is started.
i
Page 1 of 2
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
(
Continued Follow-Up Resolution Letter
Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Planning Office
_X_ Freshwater Wetlands application and review required by the Planning Board.
_X_ Site Plan application and review required by the Planning Board.
Building Department
_X_ Application for a Building Permit
Application for a Certificate of Occupancy
Application for necessary Sign permits, if applicable
No further discretionary review is necessary at this time
This office will be performing necessary inspections related to Site issues, not Building Code
issues, throughout the duration of the project. Completion of and continued compliance with
all details and conditions of approval are required in order to receive and maintain approvals.
Sincerely,
Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator
CB/sh
Encl.
cc:
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
I
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Steven Jackoski, Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary
TO: Queensbury Partners, LLC PROJECT FOR: Queensbury Partners, LLC
426 Dix Avenue southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds.
Queensbury, NY 12804 Proposal: Fowler Square
Area Variance No. 61-2011
The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below
stated meeting and has resolved the following:
Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC-Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35
Meeting Date: August 21, 2013
_X_ Re-Affirm Vote of July 24, 2013
MOTION BY RICHARD GARRAND TO REAFFIRM THE VOTE TAKEN ON JULY 24,2013 FOR
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SECONDED BY RONALD KUHL,
Upon referral to and receipt of a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Office
which provides a finding of No County Impact, I move to reaffirm the vote taken by the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for the Queensbury Partners Area Variance file number
AV 61-201 1.
Duly adopted this 21 sf day of August, 2013 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NOES
ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer
Sincerely,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
SJ/sh
Cc: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
I
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Steven Jackoski, Chairman Rov Urrico, Secretary
TO: Queensbury Partners, LLC PROJECT FOR: Queensbury Partners, LLC
Q rY
426 Dix Avenue southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds.
Queensbury, NY 12804 Proposal: Fowler Square
The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below
stated meeting and has resolved the following:
Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC-Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35
Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Approved_X_
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Southeast corner of Blind Rock and Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of 11
buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34 acre parcel. Building 1 is to include businesses such as
convenience store, coffee shop, personal service, food service, small office; Building 2 is to
include businesses similar to Building 1 including bank service and will include 70 apartment units
on the 2nd and 3rd floor; Building 3 -11 are to be 2 story, 7,500 sq. ft. footprint with 8 units each
for multi-family residential. On Bay Road the proposed relief requested here is 225 feet.
They're required to have a 300 foot setback for residential on Bay Road. Setback on Blind Rock
Road, the relief requested is 22 feet from the required 75 feet. On the balancing test, whether
benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant has presented us with other
feasible means. They've made multiple changes to this project at the behest of this Board.
Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby
properties? I think the public has echoed, yes, it quite possibly could produce an undesirable
change to the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? I don't believe it's substantial. If this
was commercial, all commercial, we wouldn't be here for this, on the Bay Road, we wouldn't
even be asked for relief on Bay Road. Whether the request will have adverse physical or
Page 1 of 2
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
1 Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Continued ZBA Resolution
ZBA Meeting Date: Wed., July 24, 2013
Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners, LLC
Corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
environmental effects. The applicant, through the traffic study, has addressed some of the
environmental effects, and I believe he's resolved a lot of them. As for the traffic study, the
traffic study seems to have solved the problems, but I think that would remain to be seen. Is this
difficulty self-created? No, it was created when the Planning Board decided they were going
to re-design this property. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 61-2011. The relief is
granted from Section 179-3-040.
Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt
Sincerely,
1 Steven Jackoski, Chairman
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
SJ/sh
Cc: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
Page 2 of 2
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
1
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-5902
Date: August 28,2013
Re: Site Plan 62-2011 &Freshwater Wetlands 6-2011 —Queensbury Partners
Your application, after review and consideration by the Planning Board, was APPROVED (resolution
attached). The approval is valid for one(1)year from the date of approval. You may request an extension of
approval before the one(1)year time frame has expired(see section 179-14-090).
Before any further review takes place the following items need to be addressed.
1. Engineering sign-off
Submit two(2)copies of revised plans to the Planning Office-one(1) for the file of record;one(1)will
be transmitted to the engineer by the Planning Office.
2. Approved Plans-once engineering sign-off is received
Submit four(4) copies of the final approved plans to the Planning Office with the resolution copied on
the final plans in its entirety; include a signature block for the Zoning Administrator's approval stamp.
One(1)copy of the plans will be returned to you to be posted on site.
2. Before any work is started
Once the approved plans have been submitted to the Planning Office please contact Bruce Frank, Code
Compliance Officer at 761-8226 for site inspection before any work is started. Mr. Frank will inspect
the project at various stages to ensure the project has been built as approved.
3. Engineering fees
To be paid upon receipt; no final signatures will be given on the plans until all engineering fees have
paid recreation fees to be paid with submission of building permit
This office will be performing necessary inspections related to Site issues, not Building Code issues,
throughout the duration of the project. Completion of and continued compliance with all details and
conditions of approval are required in order to receive and maintain approvals.
Please contact the Building&Codes office at 518-761-8256 for their requirements regarding submission of a
building permit.
1 Sincer ly,
Craig Brown,Zoning Administrator
C B/pw
cc: Matthew Fuller,Esq.
1
i
4011111111k
iTOWN OF QUEENSBURY
litor f .
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-5902
oili
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 62-2011 &FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
I
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes
construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include
office,business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of parking area
and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for a
multi-family complex,office and business retail in an Office zone.
SEQR Negative Declaration on 4/23/2013 and reaffirmed on 8/27/2013;
ZBA approved variance requests on 7/24/2013;
1 A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/23,5/23,7/23 &8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of
I
record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 OUEENSBURY
IPARTNERS,Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution.
I 1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
I 2) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed
around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
1 3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,
Iapproval,permitting and inspection;
4) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued
Iuntil the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
I6) We are adding a requirement to this motion that we will require them to provide a right turn lane at the
inception of the project,at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road.
7) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit
from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
Ib) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
I
I
8) The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff:
a) The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must
include the project SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)when such a plan was prepared and
approved;
b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an
individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
9) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development
Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the
beginning of any site work.
11) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and
all other conditions of this resolution;
12)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior
to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
cc: Matthew Fuller,Esq.
I
I
I
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23,2013
INDEX
Site Plan No.48-2012 Steven&Jennifer Kitchen 1.
FURTHER TABLING Site Plan No.17-2013 Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Kathryn Tabner Rev.Trust 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.12-1-23
Site Plan No.62-2011 Queensbury Partners 5.
FWW 6-2011 Tax Map No.289.19-1-23 through 35
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Subdivision No.3-2013 Jennifer Ball 21.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No.266.1-1-9
Site Plan No.76-2012 Paul&Margaret Sheehan 23.
Tax Map No.289.13-1-20
Site Plan No.8-2013 CRM Housing Dev.,Inc. 27.
Tax Map No.302.9-1-28.1
Site Plan No.16-2013 Robin Inwald 40.
Tax Map No.227.17-1-16
Subdivision No.5-2012 LARIC Development,LLC 46.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.308.12-1-3
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS.
REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH
APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
0
i
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23,2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER,CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS,SECRETARY
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMAS FORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
STEPHEN TRAVER
DAVID DEEB
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday,April 23, 2013. For those members of the audience,welcome. There are copies of the
agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the
projects have a public hearing scheduled tonight and we'll go into details when we get to the first
public hearing. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR.HUNSINGER-I understand this needs to be tabled because the Zoning Board has not yet acted
on the application?
MRS.MOORE-Right. Their application for the appeal is being heard potentially on the first meeting
in May,which is May 22nd at the Zoning Board. So if you would table it to the 23rd again for the
Planning Board meeting.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to move that?
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN
1 MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN,Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the May 23rd Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items this evening for recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA
SITE PLAN NO.17-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHRYN TABNER REV.TRUST AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART&RHODES;HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 89 MASON ROAD SITE
PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW RESIDENCE. FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND
CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE$: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE,SHORELINE,
I
)his{eensbury P. ni0n;Board 04,23/2t013j
Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from side, shoreline, FAR &
height requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to Zoning
Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2013 KATHRYN TABNER
REVOCABLE TRUST Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman,if you decided to take the Larry Clute LARIC recommendation at the
end of the recommendations rather than at the end of the meeting,you wouldn't get any argument
from me. I just wanted to let you know that.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.LAPPER-Thank you.
MR.HUTCHINS-What did you folks think of the small drawings? Do they work better?
MR.HUNSINGER-I like them.
MR.HUTCHINS-They're hard to read.
MR.HUNSINGER-They can be. They can be,yes. That was a good one.
SITE PLAN NO.62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY& BLIND ROCK ROADS
SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING
132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE
INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL,AND MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE
LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, OFFICE AND BUSINESS
RETAIL. VARIANCES: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR BUILDING SETBACKS ON BLIND
ROCK ROAD,RESIDENTIAL SETBACK FROM BLIND ROCK ROAD;BUILDING HEIGHT AND
BUILDING CANOPIES AND SUCH SETBACK FROM BAY ROAD. PB MAY ACKNOWLEDGE
11 LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99
WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013 WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH
2013 APA,CEA,OTHER NWI WETLANDS,STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES
TAX MAP NO.289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9,CHAPTER 94
MATT FULLER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
I ,
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 04/23/2013)
actually did a map plan and report which was accepted by the Town. We were going to do an out of
district user thing, and that's what made sewering possible on Bay Road, because the original
estimate for a sewer district to do was like about six plus million dollars,and that would have been,
if it was put out as a project under prevailing wage and so forth. We did it for a mere fraction of
that,okay,well less than the$900,000 that Galusha claims he spent on it. I know what they spent,
within reasonable,plus or minus$20,000,maybe$50,000,but in any case,that's not the point. My
point is this. The pump station that is presently down there is a T-4 Gorman Rub pump station,
which we specked,based on what the build out at the time was,the existing Code,okay. So we
specked that pump station, and also we had a consideration for what the downstream gravity
portion of the sewer was,which is all of Cronin Road. I've since spoke to the Town Engineer,and t
they've run all the numbers on this. I'm very confident that he is correct that it could handle the
capacity,even though the slope of that thing is.3%which is getting very close to what the minimum
slope is for a gravity sewer. So I'm happy with that,but the problem is,and he's looking at these
numbers. I would suggest to you, before you do anything,you talk to him about,A, when the
trigger point is that that pump station would have to be changed to a T-5 or T-6 pump station,and,
B,when Henry Hess was the Town business manager,whatever you want to call him,treasurer,or
whatever,he did a very careful analysis of the benefit tax that would have to be put in place for the
residents. Now I don't know what kind of a,if there was any compensation to Galusha or not. I
know Schermerhorn was paid some amount of money,I believe it was like$190,000,because we
built into that capacity for the existing Code at the time, and not just for what we would have
considered for a needs for an out of district user,which would have been a single purpose user. So
basically we specked it out for the entire Bay Road corridor. Now,you really need to look at this,
because here's the deal. You can't have Resident A being charged more than Resident B. That'll
create a lawsuit for you in a heartbeat. So you really need to look at any additional expenses which
will be incurred which would be a new pump station. Everything else,from what I could see,would
probably be okay,but you really need to think about that,because somebody's going to come along
and say,hey,wait a minute,these folks were paying that,you're asking me to pay this,whoa,that's a
no go,and the State will look very not well on that. I think,Chris,you know that,you were involved.
So be forewarned on that. That's one thing. This is a little bit aside from this. This is my own
jollies,if you will. If Rich Schermerhorn thought,and we all know Rich is an extremely successful
builder/developer of apartment complexes. If Rich Schermerhorn thought for one second that he
could build and successfully rent buildings that had retail or office space below it and apartments
above it,I can tell you with absolute certainty,he would have done it. Brad,do you know if he's
ever built one like that? He hasn't? Okay. End of discussion. I would really like to see the
marketing plan that these guys have,because I'm going to be willing to bet you that five years from
now you're going to see commercial space underneath apartments vacant. It's just not going to
happen. Everybody else on Bay Road has done what was asked of them,Valente,Schermerhorn,
everyone else has followed the Code up to this point. What you folks are going to do now tonight
and tomorrow is going to set in place something that our kids will have to live with,and,sure,it'll
work,but is it right? I don't think so.
MR.HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. No other takers? We will conclude the public
hearing for this evening. We will leave the public hearing open,however. There's a couple,well,
one administrative item that we need to do before we move forward on any further discussion,and
that is to accept the Lead Agency status,and I believe there was a sample resolution in our package.
I'm sorry,Acknowledging Lead Agency status. So if someone would like to move that.
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#62-2011 FWW 6-2011;AV 61-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction
of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include
office,business retail,and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of
parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and
approval is required for multi-family,office and business retail. Variances: Relief is requested for
building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road; building height
and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road. PB may acknowledge Lead Agency status,
conduct SEQRA review,and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
WHEREAS,in connection with the project,the Town of Queensbury Planning Board,by resolution,
previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the
desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review;
15
I
WHEREAS,the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified
and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE
NO. 61-2011. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 & SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add as a result of the comments?
MR.FULLER-Just two quick comments. One,and Mary Lee brought up a question about the sewer,
and I think that might have,I might not have been clear enough when I was talking about the sewer
line. We're not doing anything north of the project. So it won't,we're not going to impact the
north,when I say north,north of Bay and Blind Rock as far as the sewer line goes. We won't be
touching the line. We don't have to. It's not part of the project. It's not needed.
MR.FORD-You're not going to be tied into that?
MR.FULLER-Not that line to the north,no. The bigger line to the south we will be. The one that
Dan put in,it'll he tied into that,that sewer line south,going south.
MR.MAGOWAN-Are there two lines that go down?
MR.FULLER-No,there's one,but coming from the deal that was struck on Surrey Fields to get to
that line is the one she was talking about,but the line from the intersection south has already taken
the Town.
MR.FORD-But that will be tied in together?
MR.FULLER-It is right now,yes. We'll be tying in to the line we put in,yes,not the smaller line to
the north.
MR.GALUSHA-Yes,there's a three inch line that runs from the corner north that ties in,and I think
you folks have come across the street and tie in. From there it's a gravity line all the way down to
where it ties in. I think that's a 10 inch. We oversized that line when we did with C.T.Male. I
mean,originally I believe we had a,don't quote me,like an eight inch line. I think we sized it up to
take on,and they calculated a lot of the flows from not only our project,but all the other projects
above us,I think even cedarcrest,even though they're not using it,they're in a calculation. Mike's
got the whole chart.
MR.FULLER-So the line gets bigger right here at the intersection.
MR.GALUSHA-Right.
MR.FULLER-That small line dumps into it. The one going south is 12.
MR.MAGOWAN-Now does that tie into Schermerhorn's pump?
1 MR.FULLER-It
goes down to the pump.
MR.GALUSHA-It all ends up down there,yes.
3p
I
((Qhieeni,hivy Planning I oard 04,23,r201—i
MR.FULLER-And that's all,we gave the sewer department everything,all the calcs and everything,
even from the prior report,the updated numbers,all of that,you know,and with the comments we
had heard before,we kind of expected there's going to be some comment on the pump station and
there wasn't. They took all that into account and got back to us with the same e-mail you guys got.
Here's the comments we have,deal with us.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well,am I correct to say that really one of the main reasons the line went from
here and then further up,because Surrey Field's system was failing?
MR.FULLER-Yes.
MR.GALUSHA-Well,we brought the line up here. They hooked onto it,like the Town did after,after
we put the line in,they hooked up to it. I wasn't part of that,I don't know.
MR.MAGOWAN-But that was one of the reasons why you kept going?
MR.FULLER-No,they didn't. They ran it right to here,the corner.
MR.GALUSHA-To the corner. We ran it to the intersection on the north end,would be the north
end of our property. We put a manhole right there, then the Town, I don't know if the Town
hooked into it first or Surrey Fields hooked into it first, I'm not sure which one hooked in, but
they're both hooked into it now.
MR.MAGOWAN-All right,so you didn't bring the line down from Surrey Fields?
MR.GALUSHA-No,that was done by,I believe,Trinity Construction did that,I believe,or somebody
contracted to do it.
MR.MAGOWAN-Because Surrey Fields systems were failing?
MR.FULLER-There were some angry homeowners.
MR.GALUSHA-They were failing at the time.
MR.FULLER-I was there.
MR.GALUSHA-And I think they were looking to go another way,until we put the line up there,if I'm
not mistaken.
MR. FULLER-And the last commented I wanted, Mrs. Sonnabend had commented about the
southern piece of the property and more residential. That, Craig Brown's zoning determination,
you guys had that,it's been part of the record forever. He calculated the allowed density. The
allowed density is 142,and we have used that allowed density in residential. So,I mean,I know the
comment about variances are bad. Anybody could apply for one,but I think how this project has
gone,a variance coming back for more residential probably wouldn't be very well received. So,no,
that is a flexible space to the south. We've shown building. We're taking into account for
stormwater, parking, utilities the whole nine yards,but if it was ever used,that would need site
plan approval. The idea is,hey,if a big commercial office user needs a space,obviously we would
come back and build it. That would be great,and we don't have a problem with that,but,no,it's
not residential to the south. We've used the density in the project that's planned I'll call it on the
northern part,and that was it. I just wanted to hit those two pertinent comments.
MR.FORD-Thank you.
MR.HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Is the Board comfortable in
reviewing the SEQR?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR.HUNSINGER-It is a Long Form. Okay. Whenever you're ready.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
I
I
t
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.FORD-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Small to moderate,mitigated by Site Plan Review.
MR.KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR.FORD-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
III MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
I
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces
or recreational opportunities?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR.TRAVER-No.
I MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
1 MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
iJ
I
I
MR.KREBS-I declare a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,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
II 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.
II 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 execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that maybe required by
law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of, April, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Based on the four variances?
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for
the site include office,business retail,and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for
installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site
Plan review and approval is required for multi-family,office and business retail. Variances:Relief is
requested for building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road;
building height and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road. PB may acknowledge Lead
Agency status,conduct SEQRA review,and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning
Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that
require both Zoning Board of Appeals&Planning Board approval;
I
I
I
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO.61-2011,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-
2011, AND SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not
identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR.FULLER-Thank you.
MR.GALUSHA-Thank you.
MR.HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-You did not approve it?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did not approve it, no. We made a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
They have to go before the Zoning Board next. They have to go to the Zoning Board tomorrow
night.
MR.KREBS-Yes,and once they go to the Zoning Board,if they get approval,they have to come back
before us again for site plan review.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
SUBDIVISION NO.3-2013 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW JENNIFER BALL OWNER(S) PAMELA
HARRIS ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES LOCATION PICKLE HILL ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 20.88 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 16
& 4.89 ACRES. A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE 4.89
ACRE PARCEL. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 1-96,A V 51-90,SP 56-91,SP 43-91, BP 92-289
APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 20.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9
SECTION CHAPTER A-183,CHAPTER 147
JENNIFER BALL,PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 20.88 acre parcel into two lots of 16&4.89
acres. A single family dwelling is to be constructed on the 4.89 acre parcel. Subdivision of land
requires Planning Board review and approval.
MR.HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS.BALL-How are you?
MR.HUNSINGER-Good. How are you?
MS.BALL-I'm good. Jen Ball.
MR.HUNSINGER-Would you like to describe your project,what you'd like to do?
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.KREBS-Only if they're$50 bills.
MR.HUNSINGER-Well,we also have a public hearing scheduled with this project. Is there anyone in
the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing,and,again,let the record show no comments
were received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.HUNSINGER-This,too,is a Type II SEQR. So no additional SEQR review is necessary,and,with
that,I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#45-2013 TRUSTCO BANK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes an ATM addition by redesigning existing drive-thru lanes. Site & building
improvements in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II-no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2013 TRUSTCO BANK Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR.SLEECEMAN-All right. Thank you.
TABLED ITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER,ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 0-
OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS APPLICANT
16
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE
PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL, AND
MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF
PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX,OFFICE AND BUSINESS RETAIL IN AN OFFICE ZONE.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013
WARREN CO.DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA,CEA,OTHER NWI WETLANDS,STREAM
OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-
3-040,179-9,CHAPTER 94
MATT FULLER&DAN GALUSHA,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Sure. Under Summary,the applicant has completed the site plan application and the
freshwater wetlands permit application for project on the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Road that
involves the construction of 11 buildings -9 of which are residential, 1 mixed commercial
residential building, and 1 commercial with associated site work. The Planning Board has
completed the SEQR review for this project as a negative declaration and has provided a
recommendation to the Zoning Board that there are no adverse impacts related to the variance
request for the project. The Planning Board may consider during the reviewing opportunities to
incorporate public transportation, tourist traffic, residential storage of recreational vehicles i.e.
boats and recreational vehicles. The Planning Board may discuss as part of site plan review how
the buildings and other site features work together and interact with the surrounding area.
MR.HUNSINGER-Thank you,and I would just add for the benefit of the Board,we are joined by the
Town Engineer,Sean. Thank you for coming. Good evening and we will soon be joined by the Town
Counsel. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer & Fuller, for the applicant,
Queensbury Partners. I'm joined with Dan Galusha tonight,one of the project owners. I think I'll
just start,recap where we've been. I think Staff had updated the Board. When we last appeared
before the Board,it was for a recommendation to the ZBA on what amounted to four variances,one
from the 300 foot setback along Bay,two for the 75 foot setbacks along Blind Rock,the third was
the height setback above 40 feet. We were just under 47 feet, and the other was for the
accoutrements along the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock,some pergolas and outside awnings,
things like that. We went to the ZBA and I thought those things might have been acceptable to
them,but it came out that the height and the improvements along the corner there,Bay and Blind
Rock,again,the outside seating and things like that,seem to have been a concern,and one of the
variances down along Blind Rock,one of the buildings,we were asked to take a harder look at that
to see if we can move some of those around,and we did end up cutting one back entirely. I mean,it
moved,the net effect of what it did was it moved the road a little bit closer to the wetland but not
within the setbacks. So we don't have any issues there. We still needed one for the,I'll call it the
eastern most residential building along Blind Rock. We did cut the height down from 45 to 40,
which basically just removed the elevation to hide the mechanicals,and I will say,you know,just as
part of the final approval from the ZBA, that I think in hindsight that probably was regrettable
decision,and I think some of the members on that Board felt that way,but it is what it is. I mean,a
concern was expressed with regard to height. There were other height,despite arguments that no
variances have been granted along Bay for the height,there were variances along Bay,and we were
right in that ballpark. There was one at about 45 feet. So we were in that ballpark. Again,that last
variance, too, was to hide the mechanicals. So we thought we were in that ballpark, but
nonetheless,the ZBA,a few members made it clear that that wasn't acceptable to them. So we cut
the buildings down, and resulted in two setbacks, one, again, for that first residential structure
heading down Blind Rock Road,and the other for the setback from Bay Road of 300 feet. So those
are from upwards of into the 20's of variances that we were at. We finally ended up with two. The
brief memo that I gave you tonight just goes through the site plan criteria,it's in the site plan review
law,and again,we've been,again dawned on me when I heard the number on the application,2011,
where we are and where we've come on this project,and so I was thinking about it,and I took the
site plan criteria and really went through it,because,you know,you get a lot of projects before you,
and what you're doing and the questions that you guys ask as you're going through that criteria.
It's not like a ZBA where you have to answer specific questions,but,you know,even on the last one,
asking about lighting,things like that,that's the criteria you guys are dealing with,and you do that,
and you do it diligently. So I wanted to just kind of recap where we've been,the various arguments
that have come up in the context of the site plan review law that we have to deal with,and if I could,
I'll try not to take a lot of time,but I wanted to go through just the comments that I've prepared for
17
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.SCHONEWOLF-So does I.
MR.TRAVER-That's my feeling.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Don's got a lot of things he's got to include in it.
MR.SCHACHNER-Chris,I mean,if you entertain a motion,you know you've got to close the public
hearing first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I was about to ask the Board if anyone would like to make a motion,
would anyone on the Board like to make a motion. I'm sorry?
MR.SALVADOR-Are you going to allow rebuttal?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.SALVADOR-I thought you said she.
MR.HUNSINGER-No,we have no obligation to provide a rebuttal.
MR.TRAVER-l'Il make a motion that we close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING SP 62-2011&FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
MR.HUNSINGER-We have a motion.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Ford
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MR.KREBS-Yes. I'd like to put forward a motion to Approve Site Plan No.62-2011&Freshwater
Wetlands 6-2011 for Queensbury Partners. Waivers were not asked for,so we're not denying or
granting them,per this particular copy 1 have,okay,and 1 was just going to point out this is per the
draft which was for 4/23,okay,and of course engineering signoff will be required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator for the approved plans.
MR.TRAVER-Second.
MR.HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Did you have a comment,Sean?
MR.DOTY-1 thought perhaps you might want to make one of the conditions that turn lanes be done.
So we're all on the same page,because that was brought up.
MR.HUNSINGER-1 was just going to ask the Board if there were any special conditions.
MR.KREBS-Well,you know,personally,I feel that these engineering things should have been taken
care of a long time ago. Okay,but we don't do,we don't have a process,and I remember a couple of
years ago I made a big thing out of this. We need to change the procedure so that you resolve those
engineering things before they ever come to the Board,and only those that can't be resolved should
come before the Board. We get these papers,23,34 engineering comments,you know,it's kind of
ludicrous. So,but in any case,this particular draft does require engineering signoff prior to. So it
will be resolved.
MR.FULLER-We don't have a problem with that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.DEEB-Are we going to include it in the motion?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-It is included.
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. As he stated before, Chazen reviews stormwater and provides comments on
that. In regards to traffic,that is something that the applicant has agreed to,and I would encourage
you to add that as a condition.
MR.HUNSINGER-Would you like to make an amendment to your motion,Mr.Krebs?
MR.KREBS-Yes,I'd like to make an amendment that a traffic study provided by the applicant will be
reviewed by the Town Engineering department for proper use.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do you want to specify the turning lane?
MR.DEEB-I want to specify the turning lane.
MR.KREBS-Okay. New amendment. We will require the applicant,when constructing the project,
to make available a right turn lane,which will give us a left turn lane also,at the corner of Bay Road
and Blind Rock Road.
MR.DEEB-At the inception of the project.
MR.KREBS-Yes,but you have to understand,we're saying this,you have to understand,they can't
make that decision. That is a Warren County road and Warren County is the only person who can
make the decision.
MR.HUNSINGER-Well,they have to grant the approval.
MR. FULLER-We'll apply. I can concede that we're going to include it on our application for the
permit.
MR.KREBS-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-And they've already discussed it with them.
MR.FULLER-We did.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do we have a second to the amendment?
MRS.MOORE-And as approved by the County DPW.
MR.FULLER-Correct.
MR.KREBS-Okay.
MR.HUNSINGER-We have an amendment that was.
MS.GAGLIARDI-Can I just ask you,so were you actually going to say at the inception of or, I just
want to make sure I get the wording right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Mr. Deeb suggested, I think, that the condition regarding the turn lane
include that it be provided at the inception of the project, and Maria's asking is that part of the
motion?
MR. KREBS-I don't believe that we can require that because you have to have Warren County's
approval to change their road.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. All due respect, Mr. Krebs,you can require it. Warren County may not
agree,and in which case the applicant will not be able to fulfill your approval,but legally you do
have the authority to require a right turn lane, but the question that's on the table from our
secretary is is Mr.Deeb's editorial comment suggesting that the condition include the phrase at the
inception of the project,is that part of your motion?
35
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.KREBS-Yes,because they've already agreed to do it.
MR.SCHACHNER-All right. So it's part of the motion and part of the second.
MR.KREBS-Yes.
MR.SCHACHNER-Yes and yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we did have a second from Mr. Schonewolf. Is everyone clear on the
amendment and the resolution?
MR.TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
MR.HUNSINGER-Is there any further discussion?
MS.GAGLIARDI-I hate to bother you again,but could,I hate to ask you,but could you just start the
motion over again,just so I'm sure 100%what you want in the motion,because I want to make sure
I get it right. I'm sorry,but there was a lot of discussion.
MR.KREBS-Well,we weren't provided with a proper motion tonight. So this one is from a May 23rd,
but I'll read it again.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#62-2011&FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The
intended uses for the site include office,business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include
land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated
with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for a multi-family complex,office and
business retail in an Office zone.
SEQR Negative Declaration on 4/23/2013 and reaffirmed on 8/27/2013;
ZBA approved variance requests on 7/24/2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/23,5/23,7/23&8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
1 Zoning Code;
I2) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone,orange construction fencing shall be
installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its
review,approval,permitting and inspection;
4) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will
not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6) We are adding a requirement to this motion that we will require them to provide a right turn
lane at the inception of the project,at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road.
7) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
36
I
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
a. The project NOI(Notice of Intent)for coverage under the current"NYSDEC SPDES
General Permit from Construction Activity"prior to the start of any site work.
b. The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
8) The applicant must maintain on their project site,for review by staff:
a. The approved final plans that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator.
These plans must include the project SWPPP(Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan)
when such a plan was prepared and approved;
b. The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General
Permit,or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project.
9) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
11)Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
12)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Schonewolf, Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before the
Board this evening? If not,would anyone like to make a motion?
MR.FORD-So moved.
MOTION TO ADIOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 27.2013
Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger,Chairman
37
I
�P F t „ tigf'
k i. 2
y
tt s 5'. __ ..
ii g
.."r. `iI ;tP Nam` [
t00
1,1
If
i ,`-" 1-`'" �' _ Yin
a.
+" a t` :P a •a Pn 6 t j
ems[to
b
: A '
:- t-' tt, -4*- - ''''o'/is ''s
�, , �. ism.
...,
- '" d I
25y
pia ... ' e+'"
E
rt
OP
r ! 1
iC
z
{� < �' _
p
,�3fiP� � ' r
t£
1 44 L
13j g�
j.
h
.:. -' -•_+r' ate.:. ''"x � � N
� • � � 57
-
500 FOOT USES MAP
I
QueensburyPartners 1
iUSER ASSUMES ALL RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THIS MAP IS SUFFICIENT FOR
PURPOSES INTENDED.
Printed: Jul 03, 2012
1
TOWN O UEEN URY WAT DEPARTMENT
® 823 CORINTH ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12804 PHONE(518)793 8866 • FAX(518)798-3320
iii,
American Water Works
Association MEMBER
I BRUCE OSTRANDER CHRISTOPHER HARRINGTON, P.E.
{ Superintendent Engineer
1
I
I
1 April 25, 2013
IMr. Douglas Heller
The LA Group, PC
I 40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
1 Dear Mr. Heller:
I I am writing in reference to property located at the
intersection of Bay and Blind rock Roads in the Town of Queensbury,
New York. This property is located within the Queensbury water
district and municipal water is available.
I
If you have any further questions please contact our office.
ISincerely, I
Bruce Ostrander
ISuperintendent
I
I
1
I
1
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Application for Approval of Plans for
Bureau of Water Supply Protection Public Water Supply Improvement
Applicant Location of works(C,V,T) County Water District(area served)
Queensbury Partners,LLC Queensbury(Town) i Walren Queensbury
Type of Ownership ! 1
❑ Municipal ❑ Commercial ►1 Private-Other ❑Authority ❑Interstate
❑ Private-Institutional ❑Federal ❑International
❑ Industrial ❑ Water Works Corp. ❑ Board of Education ❑State ❑Native American Reservation
® Modifications to existing system. If checked,provide PWS ID# NY 5 6 0 0 1 1 4
❑New System? If checked,provide capacity development(viability)analysis*
❑ If this project involves a new system,new water district,or a district extension provide boundary description location details in
igital format on CD or Floppy Disk. If digital boundary location details are not available provide a text description. ,
❑Digital GIS Data Provided ❑Digital CAD Data Provided ❑Other Digital Data provided ['Text Description f
Provided
Funding Source ®Private ODWSRF** ❑Federal ['Other
IIf DWSRF is checked,provide DWSRF#
Estimated Project Cost
Source $ Treatment $ Storage $ Distribution$125,000
Pumping$ Engineering $ 5,000 Legal/Permitting$ Total$_130,000
Type of Project ❑Corrosion Control 0 U.V.Disinfection ®Distribution
❑Source ❑Pumping Unit ❑Fluoridation 0 Storage
❑Transmission ❑Chlorination ❑Other Treatment 0 Other
Project Description Install 8"ductile iron water service through site creating a looped system to provide water service from both Bay
Road and Blind Rock Road. Approximately 2,055 feet of 8"water line will be installed to service two mixed use buildings and nine
multi-family residential buildings.
Population
I Total population %population
actually served 100 %population served
of Service area 430 affected by project 0 ''
Latest total consumption data m MOD) NYS Professional ..it `"'
P ( OF i1/ F,
Licensed Engineer pS r .
Stamp&Signature ,-; 4�'` 4 . pn.\
Avg.day 44,150 gpd Year 2014 > 10 \— cr.., n'•
Max.day 88.300 gpd Year 2014 7 ?, t At.. 31 'F
' 7 s
IPeak hr. 5,520 gph Year 2014 It f 7 -? 4),
I Name of design engineer 'Oi`E, Ef� i t,
I P.
.
Douglas Heller,The LA Group, PC _
Address 40 Long Alley,Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Telephone No. (5I8)587-8100 __— ,,
E-Mail dheller@thelagroup.com, _. Fax No. 1518)587-0180 i
IName and title of applicant or designated representative r3 truct_ QS wev L{JCeye� cJ e','v-
Address g2-3 Cow.( ✓l`j"i- aC �tlCGvtst,u•.j ,u ►z El' -f
I ! (......7%2.4 4-,,..... (22.&.j.______
1//.2.)
Signature of Applicant to ,4
NOTE:All applications must be accompanied by 3 sets of plans,3 sets of specifications and an engineer's report describing the project in detail.The project must first be
' discussed with the appropriate city,county,district or regional public health engineer.Signature by a designated representative must be accompanied by a letter of ;`
authorization. •
*Additional information regarding capacity development may be found at:httn:rhvww.health.stste..nv.usinysdoh,watetrmnin.hum
*Current DWSRF project listings may he found al: liMV/www.licaltli.statemv.usinvsdohAvater/main.htiii
**By affixing the stamp and signature the Design Engineer agrees that the plans and specifications have been prepared in accordance with the most recent version of the
I , recommended standards for water works and in accordance with the NYS Sanitary Code
.
DOH ,as tozios}
t.
I
1
a the LA group 40 Long Alley 5181587 8100
Landsca e Architecture Saratoga Springs F 5181587-0180
P New York 12866 www,thelagroup,com
and Engineering,P.C.
Engineering Report
Water and Sanitary Sewer
For
FOWLER SQUARE
BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK
Prepared For
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
c/o D.A. Collins Companies
269 Ballard Road
Wilton, NY 12831
Prepared By
The LA Group, P.C.
40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
April 18, 2013
I
I
Engineering Report Fowler Square
Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
201277
s I. Introduction
This Project involves the construction and operation of +/-14,000 square feet (s.f.) of
professional office, 42,180 s.f. of mixed use retail business and 142 residential apartments on
land at the intersection of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road located in the Town of Queensbury,
Warren County.
II. Project Description
This project will be constructed on an unimproved portion of the property. The proposed
development includes construction of nine (9) multi-family residential buildings and two (2)
mixed use buildings at the southwest corner of the Blind Rock Road and Bay Road intersection.
The approved uses within the mixed use buildings include convenience store, coffee shop, food
service, offices, bank, retail shops, and personal services. Proposed mix use buildings have not
been leased so the future uses are unknown at this time.
III. Existing Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities
Municipal water service is currently provided by the Town of Queensbury Water Department.
Along the north side of Blind Rock Road there is a 12-inch ductile iron pipe main and along the
east side of Bay Road there is a 12-inch cast-iron pipe main.
Municipal sewer service is located along the west side of Bay Road, with the last manhole in the
gravity line at the intersection of Blind Rock Road. The sewer main is a recently installed 8-inch
PVC pipe.
IV. Projected Water and Wastewater Flows
Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations
Average Daily Flow (ADF) =
Office/Commercial: (52,000 square feet) x(0.10 gpd/sf)1 = 5,200 gpd
Restaurant: (200 seats) x(35 gpd/seat)' =7,000 gpd
2 bdrm Apartments: (142 apartments) x (225 gpd/apartment)= 31,950 gpd
Total= 44,150 gpd
Peaking factor for sanitary sewer flow is 4 times the average3.
Peak Hourly Flow (PHF) = (44,150 gpd/720 minutes per day) x (4 peaking
factor)2 = 245.3 gpm.
I
I
Engineering Report Fowler Square
Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
201277
Domestic Water Demand Calculations
Average Daily Flow (ADF)=44,150 gallons per day(gpd)based on Sanitary
Sewer flows.
44,150 gpd/720 minutes per day= 61 gallons per minute (gpm) average.
Peaking factor for instantaneous water use is estimated to be 10 times the average
based upon past experience. Maximum Instantaneous Water Demand is estimated
at 613 gpm.
V. Proposed Water and Wastewater Utilities
A. Proposed Domestic Water Utilities
To service the project, the existing waterlines located along Bay Road and Blind Rock
Road are proposed to be tapped for an 8-inch ductile iron water service. The proposed 8-
inch service will be installed through the site creating a looped system to provide water
service from both Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. The static pressure available at the
proposed connection into Bay Road is approximately 85 psi based on hydrant flow tests
provided by the Town. When the hydrants were flowing at approximately 1,100 gpm the
residual pressure dropped to approximately 50 psi indicating adequate supply.
The new buildings will have fire sprinklers and the domestic services will be metered.
Four fire hydrants are proposed throughout the property, with two of the hydrants placed
at dead ends in the line to provide flushing of the water line, if necessary. Service
connections, testing and disinfection will be specified in accordance with NYSDOH and
Queensbury Water Department standards.
B. Proposed Wastewater Utilities
Sewer service for the project will be provided from the Queensbury Sewer District along
Bay Road. The southern building (Building #1) along Bay Road is proposed to wye
directly into the municipal main along Bay Road, approximately 350' south of the
proposed driveway entrance. The remaining buildings will be collected in the proposed
internal sewer network and discharge into a proposed manhole along Bay Road. All
proposed sewer laterals will be gravity fed. As previously mentioned, the developers are
uncertain of their future tenants but any tenants providing food service will be required to
have an internal grease trap as part of the establishment.
1. From Table 3,NYSDEC 1988 Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works.
2. From Figure 1,GLUMRB Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.
Attachments
Sanitary Sewer Calculations (Attachment A)
2
1
1
1
ATTACHMENT A
ISanitary Sewer Calculations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I FOWLER SQUARE
SANITARY SEWER
BASIS OF DESIGN
I
Sewer Connection
IESTIMATE MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW:
APARTMENTS (2BR) :
NO. OF APARTMENTS 2 EA (PROJECTED)
IDESIGN FLOW, Qa = 225 GPD/EA (ESTIMATED)
31, 950 GPD
IOFFICE/COMMERCIAL:
NO. SQ FT "' 32180 SF
DESIGN FLOW, Qc = 0.1 GPD/SF (ESTIMATED)
3218 GPD
IMAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 35,168 GPD (Qa + Qb + Qc)
I AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 48.84 GPM (BASED ON 12 HOUR DAY)
PEAK FLOW, Qp = 195.4 GPD (PEAKING FACTOR OF 4)
ICheck capacity of , -inch sewer (flowing 1/2 full) :
IUse Manning's Equation where:
Cross-sectional area, A = 0.17 SF
Wetted perimeter, P = 1.05 FT
I Channel slope, S = 0.004 FT/FT
Roughness coefficient, n = 0.013 (10 States minimum)
I Flow, Q = 0.38 CFS or 171.5 GPM
Velocity, V = 2.19 FPS
I
I
I
1 4/22/2013
I
FOWLER SQUARE
{ SANITARY SEWER
BASIS OF DESIGN
Building #1 Sewer Connection
ESTIMATE MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW:
RESTAURANT:
NO. SEATS 200 SEAT
DESIGN FLOW, Qb = 35 GPD/SEAT (ESTIMATED)
7000 GPD
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL:
NO. SQ FT 19820 SF
DESIGN FLOW = 0.1 GPD/SF (ESTIMATED)
1982 GPD
MAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 8, 982 GPD
AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 12.48 GPM (BASED ON 12 HOUR DAY)
PEAK FLOW, Qp = 49.9 GPD (PEAKING FACTOR OF 4)
Check capacity of 6 -inch sewer (flowing 1/2 full) :
Use Manning's Equation where:
Cross-sectional area, A = 0.10 SF
Wetted perimeter, P = 0.79 FT
Channel slope, S = 0.010 FT/FT
Roughness coefficient, n = 0.013 (10 States minimum)
Flow, Q = 0.28 CFS or 125.9 GPM
Velocity, V = 2.86 FPS
1 4/22/2013
FOWLER SQUARE
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
WARREN COUNTY
NEW YORK
APRIL 2013
Prepared for:
Queensbury Partners
Prepared by:
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
80 Wolf Road, Suite 300
Albany, NY 12205
GPI Project#2013001.00
GP1 Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2
A. Study Area Description 2
B. Traffic Volumes 5
C. Intersection Operations 5
D. 2013 Existing Operations 7
IV. 2018 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS 7
A. Background Traffic Growth 7
B. 2018 No-Build Operations 7
V. 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS 9
A. Vehicle Trip Generation 9
B. Vehicle Trip Distribution and Assignment 10
C. 2018 Build Operations 14
D. Operational Improvements Considered 15
E. Sight Distance Evaluation 16
F. Coordination with Town and County Highway Departments 16
G. Findings and Recommendations 17
APPENDIX
—Traffic Volume Data
—Trip Generation(Including Internal Capture Summary)
—Capacity Analysis Reports
—Speed Data
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1 — Site Location Map 3
FIGURE 2—Proposed Site Plan 4
FIGURE 3 —2013 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6
FIGURE 4—2018 No Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 8
FIGURE 5—Vehicle Trip Distribution 11
FIGURE 6—Vehicle Trip Assignment 12
FIGURE 7—2018 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 13
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 —Level of Service Criteria 5
TABLE 2—Site-Generated Vehicle Trips—Fowler Square 9
TABLE 3—Level of Service Summary 14
TABLE 4—Comparison of Improvement Options 15
ii
I. INTRODUCTION
Queensbury Partners has retained the services of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI) to analyze the
traffic impacts associated with the proposed Fowler Square mixed use development. The project
site is in the Town of Queensbury located west of Bay Road and south of Blind Rock Road, as
shown in Figure 1. This site has been analyzed for several land use configurations in recent year.
However, this study focuses on the most recently proposed configuration discussed in Section II
below.
This report describes existing and future traffic conditions surrounding the site with and without
the proposed development; identifies potential impacts within the study area and presents any
necessary measures to mitigate these impacts.
The following sections of this report detail the analysis assumptions, procedures, and findings,
and present the anticipated affects of the proposed development on the roadway network within
the study area.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development includes 11 buildings consisting of 42,180 SF of commercial space,
14,000 SF of office space and 142 apartment units. It is anticipated to be completed by 2018.
The site will be provided access to the adjacent roadway network via two driveways. One
driveway will access Bay Road and is located approximately 640 feet south of Blind Rock Road.
The Bay Road driveway will consist of a single entrance lane and dedicated left-turn and right-
turn exit lanes. The second driveway will access Blind Rock Road and is located directly across
from Hunter Brook Lane approximately 350 feet west of Bay Road. The Blind Rock Road
driveway will consist of a single entrance lane and single exit lane. In addition, there is a third
proposed emergency access driveway which is located approximately 480 feet west of the Blind
Rock Road driveway. This driveway will be limited to emergency access and access will be
controlled by a gate. A preliminary site plan is shown on Figure 2.
Fowler Square PI
Traffic Impact Study 1
April 2013
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
A review of the roadway network and traffic data was conducted to identify the current
conditions within the study area. The study area for this project includes the following
intersection:
• Bay Road and Blind Rock Road
• Proposed Bay Road Driveway
• Proposed Blind Rock Road Driveway
A description of the roadway and traffic characteristics is provided below.
Bay Road (CR 7) - is a north-south roadway with one travel lane in each direction separated by
a two-way-left-turn-lane (TWLTL). Bay Road provides travel lanes which are 12`wide, a 12'
wide TWLTL and shoulders which are 4' wide. Bay Road provides access to residential and
commercial land uses within the study area. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph)
in the vicinity of the site.
Blind Rock Road (CR 17) — Blind Rock Road is an east-west roadway which provides a single
travel lane in each direction. Blind Rock Road provides 12' wide travel lanes, 2' wide shoulders
and has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.
Bay Road Driveway—The driveway will intersect with Bay Road and provide a single 12' wide
single entrance lane and a 12' wide dedicated left-turn lane and a 12' wide dedicated right-turn
lane for exiting traffic.
Blind Rock Road Driveway—The driveway will intersect with Blind Rock Road and provide a
24' wide roadway for entering and exiting traffic.
The intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road is controlled by a two-phase traffic signal.
Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided on Bay Road, however no separate phasing for the left-
turns is provided. The traffic signal operates with a cycle length of approximately 65 seconds.
Although there appeared to be microwave detectors provided on the traffic signal pole, the
intersection was operating in pre-timed mode.
i
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 2 PI
April 2013
I
r
e 1 r'`''' }.ram 9 *-- ' s- # 'I,-;.,,k i `2-8 "_- re ^ —
,. *
- )s
ty. ../J�.}' „r#-_ram ,,,i
'c 5 'a'- v.‘,,,..'.+ - --�, 4, •�.
,,.1
: , /
I a. . ..1` '� r it �. 't I. \ eta
5 ,, 2 i
' *�� \'�?�` 1`$,..f t t. d + tom, +v*.'', ----_,,' „„,,,."-,.',:^'ram ,...-1::::.-, `,
�' ff •�� 't I 4 i.y
r`4\q, }e. 1..' t 'L Yl' /jf'f'�.t '•—\,,*- ;}� * ,1 a 7,,
+�_�.t• lL.dfi`� ter',} } . , re ,'
` 1 '
5� 3f
•
t ,{' ' ,--
I `' ,),
•
t ,ra .' PROJECT SITE . -_f
41 ' `' ;, S.
i',,,„,/.._,i .,. "a :} ... e
1
' rv- a' = Get t3 $� ; . .___.
4
I "-' '', '''`. ,. ' ' / ..," \,4 At',
eri
s e ,, "tip + ►►�►��•��� t' )
. ' ' 0.:K ♦��� ` HA VI-�9dkt13
11
,,
•£tom I ,Tr' "g4 {F 4F 117 } .� t 1 t � 1 _-'- "�.
- i R- `1 l ey;- fir "'F �r 4d` :i
y t 5 ��
r1r �1'and ` " y\4;...„
1 '� ''� 1
L
"'� ,,. :�. d //- 1���jellP k tf 'i a[If
. - �' ►,� 1 �A0iroaadnrk�C)2.pr;tianit�' ''I ---:1'
,l L427 �_ 1€ " C'ir3t
„olio'• ,• o
#' • + '~` • '
. •tQ.. + e•ms.'•' ) �yS,� 1 �i� ,k� 's •- ,• t a' i�;�t.7
/r I 1 �.. `. x aFr St t
1 ii
cs
• 1 t _ _ t It _
ir
}, t ( 1'''s ; - ,i� t e �74 r t�
t i rfy ' t
-t '<i_ 1
k. Ili
P
t t
lj l .f` �f (..Y
...-',. rf i 7, d fir' 11 .L.: ,;
t l� 3 Art�i fl.0
, 'P w
ty
*ti -.-• .,,.0
lt ! t
r i i'y, ,i t /
rts 0 N tror : e raphi L. _.. ,.Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
iGPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROJECT LOCATION
TOWN OF QUE,,E7�NT SBURY
80 Wol Road NEW YORK
JOB NO. SCALE: SAIL: FIfiJRE NO.
Suite NY300
2011037.00 NO SCALE A/2013 1
Albany, 12205
I
I
B. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
IExisting traffic operating conditions were determined through field reconnaissance, traffic data
collected by others and traffic counts performed along Bay Road, Blind Rock Road and at the
IBay Road & Blind Rock Road intersection by GPI.
GPI conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the Bay Road and
I Blind Rock Road intersection on July 12, 2011. Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR's) were
placed on Bay Road and Blind Rock Road between July 14, 2011 and July 22, 2011 to record
hourly traffic volumes,vehicle classification and vehicle speeds.
IThe traffic count data was compared to traffic volume data reported on the Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) website. After reviewing the available data, it was
I determined that the traffic count data collected by GPI was consistent with the traffic volume
data included on the A/GFTC website.
I As the traffic counts were conducted more than a year ago, historic traffic volume growth trends
within the area were reviewed and used to adjust the counted volumes to approximate the current
2013 existing conditions. A conservative growth rate of 1%per year was selected and confirmed
I with A/GFTC to represent traffic variations within the study area due to regional growth. The
resulting 2013 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes are shown on Figure 3. All traffic volume
data reviewed or collected as part of this study are included in the appendix.
IC. EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
I The study area intersection was analyzed for capacity and Level-of-Service (LOS) following
procedures set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000), published by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB). Intersection operational analyses were conducted
Iutilizing the Synchro®transportation analysis software,version 8.0.
Levels of Service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized intersections are defined in terms of
average delay per vehicle (in units of seconds per vehicle). LOS ranges from A to F with LOS A
Irepresenting unrestricted flow and little or no delay per vehicle, and LOS F representing
congested conditions, long delays and poor traffic operations. The table below presents the LOS
I criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. In general, LOS D represents
acceptable operating conditions.
Table 1
I Level of Service Criteria
LOS Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
Delay Per Vehicle(sec.) Delay Per Vehicle(sec.)
I A B < 10.0 < 10.0
> 10.0 and<20.0 > 10.0 and< 15.0
C >20.0 and<35.0 >15.0 and<25.0
D >35.Oand<55.0 >25.Oand<35.0
IE >55.Oand<80.0 >35.O and<50.0
F >80.0 >50.0
I Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 5 GPI
April 2013
I
I
I N
Q �
•
I
I
I
I
a
— 24(51)
BLIND ROCK ROAD J1L , 106(105)
32(35) HAVILAND ROAD
52(141)-+ tr
80(121)-►
71(60)-4
�� v
PROPOSED
PROJECT SITE
I
I
I
LEGEND
AM PEAK HOUR •
(PM PEAK HOUR)
I
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 2013 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
so Wolf Road NEW PORK Suite i[e 300 JOB NO. SCALE: DATE: FIGURE N0.
Albany,NY12205 2013001.00 NO SCALE 4/2013 3
i
I
D. 2013 EXISTING OPERATIONS
A capacity analysis was conducted at the study area intersection to determine current operating
conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that under 2013 Existing Conditions all
approaches and individual movements at the intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road
operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour. For the PM Peak hour, the eastbound
approach falls to LOS D, but all other approaches remain at LOS C or better. Overall the
I intersection operates at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. It
should be noted that the traffic signal is currently operating in pre-timed mode which contributes
to additional delay for each of the approaches because of poor allocation of green time.
The results of capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3 in Section V.0 of this report.
IV. 2018 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS
I To determine the impacts that would be directly attributable to the proposed development, traffic
volumes were projected to the year 2018, the anticipated completion year of the proposed
project. The study area intersections were again analyzed for capacity and level of service under
the future year 2018 No-Build Conditions. The results of this analysis form the baseline by
which project-induced traffic impacts are evaluated.
A. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH
To account for background traffic growth within the study area, a growth rate 1.0%per year was
applied to the 2013 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes to develop the 2018 No-Build Peak
Hour Traffic Volumes. The 1% growth rate is conservative with actual growth for the area and
was verified by A/GFTC.
IThe 2018 No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes are shown in Figure 4.
B. 2018 NO-BUILD OPERATIONS
i
The Bay Road and Blind Rock Road intersection was analyzed under the No-Build Conditions.
I The results of this analysis indicate that no change in level of service is expected for any of the
intersection approaches as a result of background traffic growth over the next five years.
Overall, the intersection continues to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the
PM peak hour, and the only approach that falls below LOS C is the eastbound Blind Rock Road
approach during the PM peak hour,which is expected to continue operating at LOS D.
The results of capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3 in Section V.0 of this report.
I
Fowler Square
I Traffic Impact Study 7 GPI
April 2013
I
I
I
(Q I
I I .
I �
I
I
I
o00 ^
� � �
'CV* N 4- 26(54)
4-- 112(110)
BLIND ROCK ROAD1 �' 33(36) HAVILAND ROAD
55(148)— I
84(128)—►
75(63)-4 i M
�N
D M
PROPOSED
PROJECT SITE
i
I
I
LEGEND
IAM PEAK HOUR •
(PM PEAK HOUR)
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 2018 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
80 Wolf Road
Suite 300 NEW YORK JOB NC. SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
Albany,NY 12205 2013001.00 NO SCALE 4/2013 4
I
I
V. 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS
ITo determine the nature and extent of impacts directly attributable to site-generated traffic
associated with the proposed development, traffic volumes were analyzed for capacity and level
I of service under the future year 2018 Build Conditions. The results of this analysis were
evaluated to determine the impacts to the study area intersection.
IA. VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
Vehicle trips associated with the proposed development were established using the
I methodologies and data presented in the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, (Institute of
Transportation Engineers),which provides trip generation information for various land use types.
The proposed development is expected to consist of 42,180 SF of commercial space, 14,000 SF
I of office space and 142 apartment units. Data for Land Use Codes (LUC) 710 (Office Space),
826 (Specialty Retail), 912 (Drive-In Bank) and 220 (Apartments) were used to estimate the trip
generation for the development.
IVehicle trips generated by the proposed facility during peak hours of adjacent street traffic is
expected to be 150 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 279 vehicle trips during the PM
I peak hour before adjustment. However, the vehicle trips calculated for these proposed uses
represent single-use trips on the study area roadway system. Studies have shown that for
developments of mixed-use or multi-use sites, it is realistic to assume that there will be some
I multi-use trips within the site itself. Based on information published in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, it was estimated that 14 percent of the traffic generated by this multi-use
development represents internal trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Internal multi-use trips
I will also exist in the AM peak hour, but with no data specific to that time period being presented
in the Trip Generation Handbook, a conservative approach was taken and no internal trip credit
was taken for the AM peak hour. The multi-use development trip generation worksheet is
provided in the Appendix. Table 2 summarizes the traffic volumes generated by the proposed
Idevelopment including multi-use trip credits. All trip generation data is provided in the Appendix
as well
ITable 2
Site Generated Vehicle Trips
Fowler Square Development
Office Drive-In Specialty
Land Use Space Bank Retail Apts. Total Multi-Use New
(14kSF) (1.8kSF) (40.38kSF) (142 units) Trips Trips
I
Enter 19 13 16 15 63 --- 63
AM Peak Hour Exit 3 9 17 58 87 --- 87
Total 22 22 33 73 150 --- 150
I Enter 4 22 52 62 140 (20) 120
PM Peak Hour Exit 17 22 66 34 139 (19) 120
ITotal 21 44 118 96 279 (39) 240
Fowler Square
I Traffic Impact Study 9
April 2013 GPI
I
The Trip Generation Handbook defines two major categories for trips, pass-by trips and non-
1 pass-by trips, which are broken down into primary trips and diverted link trips. Pass-by Trips
are those made by a driver enroute to a separate primary destination. They are trips that are
attracted from existing traffic passing the site on an adjacent roadway and are not diverted from
another roadway. Primary Trips are made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator.
The stop at the generator is the primary reason for the trip and the trips generally go from origin
to generator then return to the origin. Diverted Link Trips are trips attracted from the existing
traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require diversion from that
roadway to the roadway adjacent to the generator. These trips add traffic to the street adjacent to
the site, but may not add traffic to other travel routes. For the purposes of this study, it is felt that
diverted link trips would be insignificant and though there may be some pass-by trips, the
enclosed nature of the site would yield lower than typical pass-by percentages. To be
conservative, it was felt that pass-by trips would be minimal and that all trips to the site should
be considered new to the roadway network.
B. VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Based on existing traffic patterns on the major corridors within the study area and the location of
the proposed development, it was estimated that 50% of the site-related traffic would exit and
travel south, 30% would exit and travel west, 10% would exit and travel north and 10% would
exit and travel east. 50% would enter from the south, 30% would enter from the west, 10%
would enter from the north and 10% would enter from the east. Based on these distributions 20%
of the site generated traffic is expected to travel through the Bay Road/Blind Rock Road
intersection.
Figure 5 illustrates the anticipated site trip distribution for the proposed development.
Vehicle trips associated with the proposed development were distributed to the roadway network
using the trip distribution percentages described above. These trip assignments are shown on
Figure 6. Based on the estimated trip distribution and trip generation, the Fowler Square project
is expected to add approximately 48 new trips to the Bay Road/Blind Rock Road intersection in
the PM peak hour, and 30 trips in the AM peak hour.
The distributed site trips were applied to 2018 No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes to develop
the 2018 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes shown in Figure 7. These traffic volumes represent
the anticipated traffic after construction of the proposed Fowler Square facility.
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 10 GPI
April 2013
I
I al
I
I
I
I 0
N 00
♦— 8%
I BLIND ROCK ROAD 10°° 2% HAVILAND ROAD
30%—+ 4tr� 2%--, ♦ r0.
I I 8%--♦ 1 1
c e o 0
O O 00 N
en
O
PROPOSED 4i
I PROJECT SITE
5Q% —
I
I
LEGEND
I ♦- ENTER% 0
t—— EXIT %
I
I
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP DISTRIBUTION
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
° 300Wolaa
1 Suiteite NEW YORK
JOB NO. SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
Albany,NY 12205 2013001.00 I NO SCALE 4/2013 5
I
I N
I
I po
I
I
- ,
—5(10)
I BLIND ROCK ROAD f-6(12) .4J
�r— 1 (2) HAVILAND ROAD
19(36)-4 4, r 2(2)—: Ir.7(10)----►
I Ca RioRi
p ..'N
N r
Ri
1
PROPOSED 41
I PROJECT SITE 9(12)--+
43(60)— 41
I o
N
M
I
LEGEND
AM PEAK HOUR 0
(PM PEAK HOUR) �'"
I
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS -
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP ASSIGNMENT
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
80 Suite 300 NEW YORK
olfRad
OB NO. SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
Albany,NY 12205 2013001.00 NO SCALE 4/2013 I 6
I
1
I c0
I
I
I
I
"N 4- 26(54)
4-292(286) f— 117(120)
IBLIND ROCK ROAD 6(12) 1 i- 34(38) HAVILAND ROAD
214((3 ) (1 )—+
19 36 91 91 (138)—�
I 75(63)—� 'RI ^ o^
N ,0 M M
N
I M
.N-
_C
`.o m
PROPOSED J1
IPROJECT SITE 9(12)—+ 41 t43(60)— +
ION
N
M "
N
I
LEGEND
IAM PEAK HOUR 0
(PM PEAK HOUR) ›,,
d
I
I
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
ICONSULTING ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 2018 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
80 300ad
I Suite NEW YORK
Suite 1 JOE NO. SCALE: GATE:•
FIGURE NO.
Albany,NY2205 2013001.00 NC SCALE 4/2013 7
I
I
C. 2018 BUILD OPERATIONS
IA capacity analysis for the 2018 future build condition was conducted for the study area
intersection of Bay Road & Blind Rock Road and the two site driveways to determine the
1
impacts of the Fowler Square development. The results of this analysis are described below and
summarized in Table 3.
I • At the intersection of Bay Road and the site driveway, all movements are expected to
operate at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hour under 2018 Build
IConditions.
i • At the intersection of Blind Rock Road and the site driveway, all movements are
expected to operate at LOS B or better during the AM peak hour under 2018 Build
Conditions. In the PM peak hour, the driveway approach is expected to operate at LOS C
Iand all other movements are expected to operate at LOS A.
• At the intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road, all approaches and individual
Imovements are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hour
under 2018 Build Conditions with the exception of the eastbound approach of Blind Rock
i
Road which may drop to a LOS E in the PM peak hour if no improvements are made.
The results of capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3.
ITable 3
Level of Service Summary
2013 Existing 2018 No-Build 2018 Build
Intersection (No Improvements)
Approach/Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
IBay Road and Blind Rock Road
Northbound A(8.8) B (10.4) A(8.9) B(10.6) A(8.9) B(10.8)
Southbound A(10.0) A(9.5) B(10.2) A(9.7) B(10.3) A(9.8)
I Eastbound C(22.5) D(44.5) C(23.0) D(54.0) C(23.6) E(64.7)
Westbound C(22.0) C(22.6) C(21.3) C(23.2) C(21.5) C(23.9)
Overall B(14.5) C(21.1) B(14.7) C(23.8) B(15.0) C(26.9)
I Bay Road and Driveway
Northbound Left-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. A(8.1) A(8.1)
Eastbound Right-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. B(10.6) B(10.5)
Eastbound Left-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. B(11.2) B(13.1)
I Blind Rock Road and Driveway
Northbound Right/Left-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. B(12.6) C(15.1)
Westbound Left/Thru N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. A(0.2) A(0.5)
X(X X)=Level of Service(Delay,seconds per vehicle)
N.A.=Not Applicable
Fowler Square
ITraffic Impact Study 14
April 2013 GPI
i
1
I
I
D. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED
To address existing and forecasted delays on the eastbound Blind Rock Road approach, three
improvement options were considered, as was an alternative to make no improvement other that
timing adjustments at the existing traffic signal. These options include:
➢ Adjustment of signal timings at existing pre-timed signal.
I ➢ Option 1: Signal Improvements-Upgrade the traffic signal to provide full actuation as a
way to better allocate green time based on real time traffic demand.
➢ Option 2: Construct a left turn on Blind Rock Road-Widen the Blind Rock Road
approach to Bay Road to provide a 2 lane approach-a separate left turn lane and a single
lane for through and right turn movements.
➢ Option 3: Provide both the signal improvements and the left turn lanes.
1 Capacity Analyses were conducted using the 2018 Build Condition Volumes(see Figure 7) for
each of these options. The results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of Improvement Options
2018 Build 2018 Build w/ 2018 Build w/ 2018 Build w/
Timing Adj.Only Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Approach/Movement Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
Bay Road and Blind
Rock Road
Northbound B(15.4) C(20.0) A(6.9) B(14.7) A(8.9) B(10.8) A(6.6) B(I0.3)
Southbound B(18.3) B(17.2) A(7.8) B(12.2) B(10.3) A(9.8) A(7.5) A(9.0)
Eastbound B(12.1) B(17.1) B(15.2) B(14.8) B(19.8) C(23.1) B(12.0) B(10.9)
Westbound B(11.3) B(12.1) B(12.6) B(10.0) C(21.5) C(23.4) B(13.5) B(11.6)
Overall B(14.9) B(17.3) B(10.1) B(13.4) B(14.1) B(15.9) A(9.4) B(10.4)
Bay Road and Driveway
Northbound Left-Turn A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1)
Eastbound Right-Turn B(10.5) B(10.4) B(10.7) B(10.5) B(10.6) B(10.5) B(10.7) B(10.5)
Eastbound Left-Turn B(11.2) B(13.1) B(11.2) B(13.1) B(11.2) B(13.1) B(11.2) B(13.1)
Blind Rock Road and
Driveway
Northbound B(12.6) C(15.1) B(12.6) B(15.1) B(12.6) C(15.1) B(12.6) C(15.1)
Westbound Left-Turn A(0.2) A(0.5) A(0.2) A(0.5) A(0.2) A(0.5) A(0.2) A(0.5)
The results indicate that either improvement option 1 (signal) or 2 (turn lane) will improve
operating conditions so that all approaches, including the eastbound approach, will operate at a
LOS C or better. With option 3 (new signal and turn lane), all approaches will operate at a LOS
B or better indicating significant reserve capacity. When comparing the results for options 1 and
2 it appears that upgrading the traffic signal would provide slightly better operations than
installing the left turn lane.
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 15 GPI
April 2013
i
i
E. SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION
GPI utilized a radar spot speed study to determine current operating speeds along Bay Road and
Blind Rock Road in the vicinity of the proposed site driveways. The radar spot speed study
observes vehicles during off-peak periods traveling under free flow conditions (meaning that
motorists are able to choose the speed at which they are comfortable driving and are uninhibited
by other vehicles in front of them or the traffic signal which may influence travel speeds).
The speed data collection observed 25 vehicles in each direction along Bay Road and Blind Rock
Road and resulted in an average travel speed of 43.9-mph in the northbound direction and 45.3-
mph in the southbound direction along Bay Road and 40.4-mph in the eastbound direction and
38.5-mph in the westbound direction along Blind Rock Road. The 85th percentile operating speed
determined from the acquired data was 46-mph for the northbound direction and 48-mph in the
southbound direction along Bay Road and 43-mph in the eastbound direction and 40-mph in the
westbound direction along Blind Rock Road. Therefore, available sight distance at the proposed
driveways was evaluated and compared to that required for a design speed of 50-mph along Bay
Road and 45-mph along Blind Rock Road although the posted speed limit along Bay Road is 45-
mph and along Blind Rock Road is 40-mph. The speed data collected along Bay Road and Blind
Rock Road is provided in the appendix of this report.
Field reconnaissance indicated the available sight distance at the proposed Bay Road driveway
exceeded the recommended sight distance of 555 feet for an operating speed of 50-mph per
guidelines within A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, (AASHTO, 2004).
Additionally, the available sight distance at the Blind Rock Road driveway exceeded the
recommended sight distance of 500 feet for an operating speed 45-mph.
To ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic to and from the proposed site, it is recommended
that any proposed plantings, vegetation, landscaping, and signing along the site frontage be kept
low to the ground or set back sufficiently from the edge of the roadways so as not to inhibit the
available sight lines.
F. COORIDINATION WITH TOWN AND COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS
During the preparation of this Study, GPI staff meet with the Warren County Department of
Public Works and the Queensbury Town Highway Superintendant to review the traffic analysis
and to solicit any concerns regarding the project. The following meetings were held:
• February 27, 2013—Met with Warren County Department of Public Works
• March, 11, 2013 -Met with Queensbury Town Highway Superintendant
• March 15,2013—Met with Queensbury Town Highway Superintendent
Warren County indicated both Bay and Blind Rock Roads were County Roads and permits
would be required to construct the driveways as shown on the site plan. The County also
indicated the traffic signal that controls the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock Road is
maintained by the Town of Queensbury. Warren County did not have any objection to the
project and indicated their intention to issue the necessary driveway permits once Town
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 16 GPI
April 2013
I
I
approvals are granted.
The meetings with the Town Highway Department focused on the current operation of the traffic
signal that controls the Bay and Blind Rock Road intersection. At the March 15th meeting at the
intersection, the timing of the current fixed time operation was modified to allocate the green
time in better balance with the current traffic flows. During this meeting it was confirmed that
the existing microwave vehicle detectors had malfunctioned and this was contributing to the
delays experienced at the intersection. It was indicated that the funds for installing new
detectors were in the Towns Highway budget and the equipment would be ordered and installed
when delivered.
G. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings
The results of the traffic analysis have indicated the following:
• Fowler Square will generate approximately 150 new trips in the AM peak hour and 222
trips in the PM peak hour.
• Approximately 20% of the new site generated trips will travel through the Bay
Road/Blind Rock Road intersection
• The eastbound Blind Rock Road approach to the Bay Road experienced the longest
delays at the intersection — forecasted to operate at a LOS D by 2018 without Fowler
Square and LOS E with Fowler Square.
• The additional traffic generated by Fowler Square will have a minimal impact to traffic
operations in the area.
• There is sufficient sight distance provided at each of the two main site driveway
locations.
• Upgrades to the timing and equipment at the existing traffic signal will mitigate the
additional traffic that the project will add to the Bay Road Blind Rock Road intersection.
Recommendations
The analysis shows the construction of the Fowler Square development will not result in any
significant traffic impacts. However, we offer the following recommendations to provide
adequate traffic flow:
• Provide one lane entering the project site and two lanes exiting at the Bay Road
driveway.
• Provide one lane entering and one lane exiting at the Blind Rock Road driveway.
• Provide stop sign control on both main driveway approaches to Bay Road and Blind
Rock Road.
• Any proposed plantings, vegetation, landscaping, and signing along the site frontage is
kept low to the ground or set back sufficiently from the edge of the roadways so as not to
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 17 GPI
April 2013
i
I
inhibit the available sight lines.
• Modify the current fixed time operation at the existing traffic signal at the intersection of
Bay Road and Blind Rock Road to provide a better allocation of green time (This was
completed on March 15, 2013).
I • Replace the malfunctioning microwave detectors at the traffic signal to provide a traffic
responsive operation(The Town has this equipment on order).
• Provide sufficient ROW along Blind Rock Road to allow for a future widening by others
Ito provide an additional approach lane to the intersection..
Many of these recommendations have already been incorporated on the preliminary site plan(see
Figure 2). With the implementation of these recommendations the traffic impacts of Fowler
Square will be mitigated, the adjacent roadway network will continue to operate safely and
efficiently and the calculated traffic operations under the 2018 Build Conditions will be better
than the 2013 Existing Conditions.
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 18 GPI
April 2013
i •
•
APPENDIX
TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
TRIP-GENERATION CALCULATIONS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
SPEED DATA
I
•
•
•
TRAFFIC VOLUME
O UME DATA
- - . . .-,i I 1 ___/
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc
80 Wolf Road, Suite 300
Albany, New York 12205
Weather: Clear, Warm 518-453-9431 File Name : Bay Road & Blind Rock Road
Serial Number: T12-1395 Site Code : 2011037
Collected By: CK Start Date : 7/12/2011
Other Notes: Page No : 1
Groups Printed-Autos-HV's
Bay Road Haviland Road Bay Road Blind Rock Road I
From North From East From South From West
Start Time Left 1 Thru Right 1 Peds 1 App.Total Left 1 Thru Right Peds App.Total Left Thru 1 Right Peds App.Total Left Thru Right I Peds App.Total Int.Total
07:00 4 28 8 0 40 2 9 2 0 13 5 15 4 0 24 8 9 3 0 20 97
07:15 5 48 16 0 69 2 21 1 0 24 10 11 6 0 27 10 17 11 0 38 158
07:30 6 52 22 0 80 5 23 5 0 33 8 19 3 0 30 2 18 16 0 36 179
07:45 7 56 38 0 101 6 19 2 0 27 10 19 3 0 32 12 30 19 0 61 221
TotalI 22 184 84 0 290 15 72 10 0 97 33 64 16 0 113I 32 74 49 0 155 655
08:00 4 47 28 0 79 4 24 8 0 36 I 8 24 7 0 39 11 15 22 0 48 202
08:15 6 56 28 0 90 10 21 7 0 38 17 18 10 0 45 13 17 18 0 48 221
08:30 4 53 23 0 80 7 27 4 0 38 16 31 6 0 53 15 20 13 0 48 219
08:45 13 48 29 0 90 10 32 5 0 47 19 35 7 0 61 , 12 26 17 0 55 253
Total 27 204 108 0 339 31 104 24 0 159 60 108 30 0 1981 51 78 70 0 199 895
-'BREAK"*
16:00 9 40 21 0 70 14 27 11 0 52 23 77 15 0 115 27 34 7 0 68 305
16:15 12 55 30 0 97 10 22 12 0 44 23 56 8 0 87 17 33 15 0 65 293
16:30 .0 41 25 0 76 7 36 12 0 55 25 72 16 0 113 33 27 16 0 76 320
16:45 7 43 27 0 77 7 26 8 0 41 15 47 15 0 77 29 25 11 0 65 260
Total 38 179 103 0 320 38 111 43 0 1921 86 252 54 0 392 106 119 49 0 274 1178
17:00 12 46 24 0 82 10 18 14 0 42 15 70 14 0 99 36 35 18 0 89 312
17:15 9 42 21 0 72 10 23 16 0 49 12 75 8 0 95 40 32 14 0 86 302
17:30 7 39 19 0 65 3 28 10 0 41 14 47 16 0 77 26 26 12 0 64I 247
17:45 4 41 23 0 68 5 31 5 0 41 10 43 2 0 55 29 28 11 0 68 232
Total 32 168 87 0 287 28 100 45 0 173 51 235 40 0 326 131 121 55 0 307 1093
Grand Total 119 735 382 0 1236 112 387 122 0 621 230 659 140 0 1029I 320 392 223 0 935I 3821
Apprch% 9.6 59.5 30.9 0 18 62.3 19.6 0 22.4 64 13.6 0 34.2 41.9 23.9 0
Total% 3..1 19.2 10 0 32.3 2.9 10.1 3.2 0 16.3 6 17.2 3.7 0 26.9 8.4 10.3 5.8 •0 24.5
Autos 119 729 381 0 1229 109 ' 381 122 0 612, 229 656 136 0 1021 320 390 223 0 933 3795
%Autos 100 99.2 99.7 0 99.4 _ 97.3 98.4 100 0 98.6 99.6 99.5 97.1 0 99.2 100 99.5 100 0 99.8 99.3
HV's 0 6 1 0 7 3 6 0 0 9 1 3 4 0 8 1 0 2 Q 0 2 26
HV's 0 0.8 0.3 0 0.6 2.7 1.6 0 0 1.4 0.4 0.5 2.9 0 0.8 I 0 0.5 0 0 0.2 0.7
- - - ■ a ___-1 ---J
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc
80 Wolf Road, Suite 300
Albany, New York 12205
Weather: Clear, Warm 518-453-9431 File Name : Bay Road & Blind Rock Road
Serial Number: T12-1395 Site Code : 2011037
Collected By: CK Start Date : 7/12/2011
Other Notes: Page No : 2
I Bay Road
Out In Total
1098 1229 I 23271
3 7 101
11011 1236 23371
I 1
381 729 119 0
1 6 0 0
382 735 119 0
Right Thru Lek Peds
W v O QI N 001
Z'� ^ ,
al `.~— J N
•
N N
Q
N enNN I
North —NO N >C
-•Q1(]
d M N,n in:'..2—). I--=a, W
5
el a, )- 7/12/2011 07:00 2 0�rn aY-� rn 7/12/2011 17:45 — o
, CI o n�
N N= f+NN D ^5
p NN ��f Autos , a" o ao Nwo
mrnrn HVs te
— Nl d� o0o
Li -0 ^000
1
Left Thru Right Peds
229 6561 136 0
1 31 4 0
230, 6591 140 0
1061 1021 20821
9 81 17
1070 10291 2099
Out In Total
Bac Road
-a A _J _J
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc
80 Wolf Road,Suite 300
Albany, New York 12205
Weather: Clear, Warm 518-453-9431 File Name : Bay Road & Blind Rock Road
Serial Number: T12-1395 Site Code : 2011037
Collected By: CK Start Date : 7/12/2011
Other Notes: Page No : 3
Bay Road Haviland Road Bay Road Blind Rock Road
From North From East From South From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds I App.Total Left Thru Right Peds App.Total Left Thru I Right Peds App.Total I Left Thru Right I Peds App.Total Int.Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 to 11:45-Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00
08:00 4 47 28 0 79 4 24 8 0 36 8 24 7 0 39 11 15 22 0 48 202
08:15 6 56 28 0 90 10 21 7 0 38 17 18 10 0 45 13 17 18 0 48 221
08:30 4 53 23 0 80 7 27 4 0 38 16 31 6 0 53 15 20 13 0 48 219
08:45 13 48 29 0 90 10 32 5 0 47 19 35 7 0 61 12 26 17 0 55 253
Total Volume 27 204 108 0 339 - 31 104 24 0 159 60 108 30 0 198 51 78 70 0 199 895
%App.Total 8 60.2 31.9 0 19.5 65.4 15.1 0 30.3 54.5 15.2 0 25.6 39.2 35.2 0
PHF .519 .911 .931 .000 .942 .775 .813 .750 .000 .846 .789 .771 .750 .000 .811 .850 .750 .795 .000 .905 .884
_a .- _.a _._a _l a -.../
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc
80 Wolf Road, Suite 300 •
Albany, New York 12205
Weather: Clear, Warm 518-453-9431 Fife Name : Bay Road & Blind Rock Road
Serial Number: T12-1395 Site Code : 2011037
Collected By: CK Start Date : 7/12/2011
Other Notes: Page No : 4
Bay Road Haviland Road Bay Road Blind Rock Road
From North From East From South From West
Start Time Left Thru Right Peds App.Total Left Thru Right Peds App.Total Left Thru Right Peds App.Total Left Thru Right Peds App.Total Int.Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 to 17:45-Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 16:30
16:30 10 41 25 0 76 7 36 12 0 55 25 72 16 0 113 33 27 16 0 76 320
16:45 7 43 27 0 77 7 26 8 0 41 15 47 15 0 77 29 25 11 0 65 260
17:00 12 46 24 0 82 10 18 14 0 42 15 70 14 0 99 36 35 18 0 89 312
17:15 9 42 21 0 72 10 23 16 0 49 12 75 8 0 95 40 32 14 0 86 302
Total Volume 38 172 97 0 307 34 103 50 0 187 67 264 53 0 384 138 119 59 0 316 1194
%App.Total 12.4 56 31.6 0 18.2 55.1 26.7 0 17,4 68.8 13.8 0 43.7 37.7 18.7 0
1 PHF .792 .935 .898 .000 .936 .850 .715 .781 .000 .850 .670 .880 .828 .000 .850 .863 .850 .819 .000 .888 .933
i
I
Thomas Melander
Traffic Engineering Technician
1346 Lawn Avenue
Schenectady,New York
Telephone—518-466-074I
DATE: July 25,2011
SUBJECT: BAY ROAD, SOUTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD,TRAFFIC STATISTICS
Traffic statistics for Bay Road, 600 feet south of Blind Rock Road, Queensbury, New York
Ifrom July 14 through July 22,2011, using traffic counter MC-5 are tabulated below;
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 45
Average Speed-42
85th Percentile Speed-47
10 mph Speed Range-38 to 48 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range-74%
Total Vehicles Counted—61,231 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=7,698 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume -8,174 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 47,926 78%
Motorcycles 761 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 11,949 20%
Buses 95 0%
Trucks 275 0%
Tractor-trailers 225 0%
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
✓ 12 AM - ' 1 AM 38 43 34 25 35 34 37 59
✓ 1 AM - 2 AM 21 30 14 16 18 24 23 21
r
2AM - 3AM 14 14 10 16 11 12 24 14
r 3AM - ` 4 AM 13 10 13 8 9 10 23 16
✓ 4 AM - g 5 AM 21 14 21 19 24 25 29 13
✓ 5 AM - w 6 AM 57 29 65 82 67 68 56 35
✓ 6 AM - ` 7 AM 137 76 165 157 167 162 160 71
✓ 7 AM - r 8 AM 292 126 327 360 352 359 336, 187
✓ 8 AM - r 9 AM 421 262 443 479 476 504 502 283
✓ 9 AM - r10 AM 484 369 491 539 508 513 510 455
✓ 10 AM -'11 AM 544 437 539 534 599 564 573 563
✓ 11 AM -`12 PM 579 504 553 577 560 592 657 613
✓ 12 PM -r 1 PM 601 490 622 615 575 647 685 574
✓ 1 PM - r 2 PM 576 489 669 570 553 627 620 506
✓ 2 PM -r 3 PM 548 428 587 565 559 611 645 444
✓ 3 PM - ' 4• PM 596 440 698 621 661 615 628 506
✓ 4 PM - ' 5 PM 607 450 665 653 640 649 727 465
5 PM - r 6 PM 552 440 535 589 579 646 612 461
r 6 PM -r 7 PM 466 466 441 423 466 515 498 456
✓ 7 PM - r 8• PM 383 350 387 407 355 392 442 349
8 PM - ` 9 PM 323 288 320 349 315 332 329 326
9 PM -r10 PM 224 206 193 196 245 214 278 233
✓ 10 PM -`11 PM 124 90 108 106 96 151 148 169
✓ 11 PM - r12 AM 76 63 61 81 54 88 103 84
7,698 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
2
I
I
I
Bay Road
All Traffic
30000 26250
0 25000
20000 -
15000
14258 14362
Ti 10000
0 5000 -2809- 2679
25 70 57 337 316 50
0 !
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
Vehicle Speeds
Bay Road
Traffic Speeds
90
80 _ — _ — -
40 .0
30 _
AM I AM I AM I AM I AM I AM AM AM AM AM AMIAM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM;PM PM`PM PM PM
I �
j 12 1 12 3 4 15 16 7 8 ; 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 7 ; 8 9 10 11
Average Speed 8501 SpeedMaximum Speed
3
I
I
I Bay Road,Northbound Traffic
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
I Posted Speed Limit-Speed Limit 45
Average Speed- 42
85th Percentile Speed -46
10 mph Speed Range-36 to 46 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range -73%
Total Vehicles Counted—30,838 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,870 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume- 4,143 Vehicles per day
I Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
I Cars 24,186 78%
Motorcycles 338 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 6,220 20%
Buses 41 0%
I
Trucks 146 0%
Tractor trailers 108 0%
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Northbound Traffic
IJuly 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
' 12 AM - r 1 AM 20 23 14 16 21 20 18 31
✓ 1 AM - ` 2AM 12 19 7 9 12 17 10 13
r 2AM - 3AM 8 8 3 6 5 8 17 8
✓ 3AM 4AM 4 3 3 3 3 2 8 8
✓ 4AM 5AM 6 8 5 2 4 7 12 5
✓ 5AM - r 6 AM 18 11 22 29 20 17 15 15
6 AM - 7 AM 51 42 59 49 59 59 60 30
P 7 AM - 8 AM 100 51 99 111 113 120 119 90
' 8 AM - r 9• AM 173 132 172 188 184 193 204 140
✓ 9 AM - r10 AM 223 194 215 256 228 244 226 201
' 10 AM - r11 AM 258 203 241 240 297 270 277 275
• 11 AM - r12 PM 289 238 258 308 286 317 335 284
✓ 12 PM - r 1 PM 314 243 295 334 317 327 375 304
' 1 PM - ' 2• PM 297 253 338 289 285 325 322 270
2 PM - 3 PM 284 204 277 297 316 338 340 219
✓ 3 PM - w 4• PM 320 219 360 360 383 318 343 257
4 PM - r 5 PM 335 203 393 369 359 375 386 263
5 PM - ° 6 PM 306 188 325 347 359 363 338 224
• 6 PM - r 7 PM 242 194 258 218 264 262 264 236
• 7 PM - " 8 PM 209 164 227 233 195 234 236 176
r 8 PM - 9 PM 173 137 162 199 155 195 197 163
✓ 9 PM - �10 PM 120 96 121 108 132 113 143 125
1 r 10 PM - r11 PM 60 39 60 54 54 57 76 83
✓ 11 PM - r12 AM 44 34 35 51 26 53 60 47
3,870 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
4
Bay Road
Northbound Traffic
14000 13034-
12000
a3 10000 8693-
cr
8000 I — f
6000 i 5621
4000
2155
°'
> 2000 5 21 37 289 ; 857 104 15
0 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
Vehicle Speeds
Bay Road
Northbound Traffic Speeds
90
80 — —
70 — —
60
40
30 —
AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AMIPMIPM PMIPMIPMIPM PMIPM PM PM PM PM
12 ' 12 ( 34 5 , 6 7 8 9 10 1112 1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' 11
'Average Speed 85th Speed Maximum Speed
5
9 Bay Road,Southbound Traffic
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Posted Speed Limit-Speed Limit 45
Average Speed -43
85th Percentile Speed-48
110 mph Speed Range-38 to 48 mph
1 Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range- 76%
Total Vehicles Counted—30,838 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,828 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-4,031 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 23,885 79%
1 Motorcycles 429 1%
PicicupsNans/SUV 5,774 19%
Buses 55 0%
Trucks 131 0%
Tractor-trailers 119 0%
` Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Southbound Traffic
1 July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
12 AM r 1 AM 18 20 20 9 14 14 19 28
' 1 AM - r 2AM 8 11 7 7 6 7 13 8
` 2AM - r 3AM 7 6 7 10 6 4 7 6
3AM - r 4AM 8 7 10 5 6 8 15 8
• 4 AM 5• AM 15 6 16 17 20 18 17 8
✓ 5 AM - ' 6 AM 39 18 43 53 47 51 41 20
6 AM - ' 7• AM 86 34 106 108 108 103 100 41
• 7 AM 8 AM 192 75 228 249 239 239 217 97
' 8 AM - r 9 AM 248 130 271 291 292 311 298 143
• 9 AM - r10 AM 260 175 276 283 280 269 284 254
I ' 10 AM - '11 AM 287 234 298 294 302 294 296 288
✓ 11 AM -`12 PM 290 266 295 269 274 275 322 329
✓ 12 PM - r
1 PM 288 247 327 281 258 320 310 270
i r 1 PM - ` 2 PM 279 236 331 281 268 302 298 236
• 2 PM 3• PM 264 224 310 268 243 273 305 225
✓ 3 PM - i 4 PM 276 221 338 261 278 297 285 249
• 4 PM - r 5 PM 272 247 272 284 281 274 341 202
I 5 PM - r 6 PM 245 252 210 242 220 283 274 237
✓ 6 PM - ' 7 PM 224 272 183 205 202 253 234 220
• 7 PM - r 8 PM 174 186 160 174 160 158 206 173
` 8 PM - ' 9 PM 150 151 158 150 160 137 132 163
r 9 PM - r10 PM 104 110 72 88 113 101 135 108
✓ 10 PM `11 PM 64 51 48 52 42 94 72 86
✓ 11 PM - r12 AM 33 29 26 30 28 35 43 37
I3,828 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
6
I
i
i
i
Bay Road
I South bound Traffic
14000 13216
12000
a) 10000 -8741
w 8000
5565
m 6000
4000
a, 1822
> 2000 20 49 20 48 654 ! j 0 212 35
3
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
Vehicle Speeds
Bay Road
South bound Traffic Speeds
90 — —
80 ! —
70
50 .. ,
40 —
rr
30 AMIAMiAM AM AM AM AMIAMIAMIAM AM AM PMIPMIPM PM PMIPM PM PMIPM PM PMIPMt
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 1 8 9 10 11
Average Speed 85th Speed Maximum Speed
7
I
I
Thomas Melander
Traffic Engineering Technician
1346 Lawn Avenue
Schenectady,New York
Telephone—518-466-0741
DATE: July 25, 2011
SUBJECT: BLIND ROCK ROAD,EAST OF BAY ROAD,TRAFFIC STATISTICS
Traffic statistics for Blind Rock Road, 200 feet west of Bay Road, Queensbury, New York
from July 14 through July 22,2011, using traffic counter MC-4 are tabulated below;
Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
Posted Speed Limit-Speed Limit 40
Average Speed-28
85th Percentile Speed-33
10 mph Speed Range-23 to 33 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range-65%
Total Vehicles Counted—51,983 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=6,560 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-7,012 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 42,384 82%
Motorcycles 653 1%
PickupsNanslSUV 8,358 16%
Buses 92 0%
Trucks 323 1%
Tractor-trailers 173 0%
Z
1
1 Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
July 14-Jury 21,2011
1 AVERAGE
i TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
12 AM - r 1 AM 40 61 33 28 29 51 30 50
I r 1 AM - r 2 AM 29 53 18 22 29 23 24 33
I r I 2AM - 3AM 10 6 6 7 9 7 25 12
r 3AM - r4AM 8 11 9 3 5 7 16 8
4 AM - r 5 AM 21 14 21 23 24 20 26 19
5 AM - ' 6 AM 50 25 53 72 59 60 44 37
r 6 AM - 7 AM 127 49 149 173 166 149 135 71
r 7 AM -" 8 AM 289 118 340 338 363 368 314 184
r 8 AM - '
9 AM 408 231 415 504 465 510 441 287
9 AM - r10 AM 421 341 420 494 418 463 419 394
10 AM -"11 AM 447 376 404 477 491 481 457 440
11 AM - '12 PM 481 428 400 482 519 529 499 509
1 ' 12 PM - r 1 PM 473 379 480 527 486 515 501 421
' 1 PM - r 2 PM 451 397 468 476 474 494 473 376
2 PM - , 3 PM 461 363 453 478 499 516 526 390
r 3 PM - r 4• PM 488 329 537 540 536 524 536 414
4 PM - 5 PM 495 331 504 549 558 580 549 392
5 PM - 6 PM 477 356 475 547 523 602 503 333
6 PM - ' 7• PM 386 346 400 381 383 443 413 333
r 7 PM - r 8 PM 306 290 267 324 270 363 354 276
r 8 PM - r 9• PM 294 285 283 317 318 302 272 281
r 9 PM - r10 PM• 196 148 192 178 218 211 189 237
r 10 PM - '11 PM 124 81 92 106 114 161 130 181
r 11 PM - r12 AM 78 57 51 65 85 72 113 102
6,560 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
2
i
i
Blind Rock Road
_ All Traffic
20000 18332
>, 18000 -
c 16000 14540-
S 14000
Cr 12000
` 10000 $ ]
a) 8000
6000 3776
s 37T7
w 4000 1430
2000 22 339 3 r I -690 101- -1-3-
0
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
Vehicle Speeds
Blind Rock Road
Traffic Speeds
65
55 —
50
45 _ — —
40
30
25
20 —,
,AM AM'AM AMIAMIAM AMIAM AM AM AM AM PMIPMIPM PM PMIPM PMIPM PMIPM'PMIPM
12 1 1 2 3 I; 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 1 12 1 , 2 3 4 5 6 ; 7 8 9 10 11 I
—Average Speed 85th Speed 'Maximum Speed
3
Blind Rock Road,Eastbound Traffic
200 feet west of Bay Road
Posted Speed Limit-Speed Limit 40
•
Average Speed-26
85th Percentile Speed-33
10 mph Speed Range-21 to 31 mph
1 Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range-53%
Total Vehicles Counted—25,160 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,173 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-3,393 Vehicles per day
t Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 20,352 81%
Motorcycles 285 I%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 4,148 17%
Buses 44 0%
I Trucks 20 0%
Tractor-trailers 131 1
1 Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
Eastbound Traffic
May 26-June 2,2007
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
r 12 AM - ' 1 AM 29 46 27 22 15 36 20 36
1 AM - r 2 AM 21 43 16 15 17 12 17 28
2AM - r 3AM 7 4 4 5 8 1 21 4
3 AM - r 4 AM 5 10 4 1 1 4 10 3
4AM - r 5AM 12 8 9 14 16 11 16 9
r 5 AM - r 6 AM 22 10 25 29 25 24 21 20
r 6 AM - ' 7 AM 56 19 65 78 74 68 59 27
r 7 AM -' 8 AM 119 45 149 148 146 157 121 65
r 8 AM - r 9 AM 162 85 172 202 176 216 181 99
r 9 AM - r10 AM 168 134 153 183 176 187 170 172
r 10 AM -r11 AM 195 160 171 221 220 205 200 185
r 11 AM -r12 PM 206 177 163 214 232 229 211 216
r 12 PM - r 1 PM 221 190 221 238 230 227 239 205
r 1 PM - r 2 PM 220 175 220 244 223 263 229 187
r 2 PM - ' 3 PM 228 173 216 251 248 251 260 196
r 3 PM - r 4 PM 242 161 261 266 266 251 258 231
r 4 PM - r 5 PM 255 144 269 294 303 304 277 194
r 5 PM - r 6 PM 248 186 244 268 283 310 273 175
' 6 PM - r 7 PM 199 187 208 190 206 226 204 172
r 7 PM - r 8 PM 160 172 140 175 131 182 176 143
r 8 PM - r 9 PM 160 148 154 177 178 165 158 137
r 9 PM - r10 PM 112 83 116 113 119 117 107 131
r 10 PM - '11 PM 79 48 58 74 78 108 84 100
r 11 PM - r12 AM 49 38 34 41 55 41 72 65
3,173 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
4
I
I
I Blind Rock Road
Eastbound Traffic
I 8000 7�03
T 7000
ci
r;009
E 6000
I — 4833
5000
ii 4000 _3456_
cb 3000 i
2000 cu 137-9. e i 1653
1000 2-1- 306 j 417
0 I 73 8
I0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
Vehicle Speeds
I
I
Blind Rock Road
Eastbound Traffic Speeds
65 1 —
60 1___ — _
55 — —
50
1 45
35 — — — - —
30
25
20 IAM AMIAM AM AMIAM,AMIAM AM AM AM AMIPMIPMPM PMIPM PM PM PM PM I'M II PM PM
12 1 2 3 4 1 5 16 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 i 9 j 10 11 '
Average Speed 85th Speed Maximum Speed
5
I
I
Blind Rock Road, Westbound Traffic
I200 feet west of Bay Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 40
I Average Speed-30
85th Percentile Speed-34
10 mph Speed Range- 25 to 35 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range-53%
I Total Vehicles Counted—26,823 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,386 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-3,619 Vehicles per day
IVehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 22,032352 82%
I Motorcycles 368 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 4,210 16%
Buses 48 0%
Trucks 123 0%
Tractor-trailers 42 0%
Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
Westbound Traffic
July14-July21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
r 12 AM - ' 1 AM 11 15 6 6 14 15 10 14
' 1 AM - ' 2AM 8 10 2 7 12 11 7 5
2AM - ' 3AM 4 2 2 2 1 6 4 8
1 ' 3AM - ' 4AM 4 1 5 2 4 3 6 5
a 4AM - ' 5AM 9 6 12 9 8 9 10 10
5 AM - , 6 AM 28 15 28 43 34 36 23 17
F 6 AM - ' 7 AM 72 30 84 95 92 81 76 44
7AM - T 8AM 171 73 191 190 217 211 193 119
✓ 8 AM - ' 9 AM 246 146 243 302 289 294 260 188
✓ 9 AM - '10 AM 253 207 267 311 242 276 249 222
10 AM - 11 AM 252 216 233 256 271 276 257 255
✓ 11 AM - '12 PM 275 251 237 268 287 300 288 293
12 PM - 1 PM 251 189 259 289 256 288 262 216
• 1 PM - r 2 PM 231 222 248 232 251 231 244 189
' 2 PM - 3 PM 233 190 237 227 251 265 266 194
f 3 PM - 4 PM 246 168 276 274 270 273 278 183
4 PM - r 5 PM 240 187 235 255 255 276 272 198
5 PM - ' 6 PM 229 170 231 279 240 292 230 158
✓ 6 PM - ' 7 PM 187 159 192 191 177 217 209 161
7 PM - r 8 PM 146 118 127 149 139 181 178 133
i 8 PM - r 9 PM 134 137 129 140 140 137 114 144
✓ 9 PM - '10 PM 84 65 76 65 99 94 82 106
✓ 10 PM - '11 PM 45 33 34 32 36 53 46 81
✓ 11 PM - '12 AM 28 19 17 24 30 31 41 37
3,386 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
6
I
I
Blind Rock Road
Westbound Traffic
I 12000 _11329
9707
0 10000
8000
I 0
II- 6000
0
TS 4000 2952
[ F 2064
(1), 2000 320 i 273 28 5
1 33 111
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
ii
Vehicle Speeds
I
Blind Rock Road
Westbound Traffic Speeds
55
50
45 r
40
35
30
25
20
AM AM AM AM AMIAMIAMIAMAM AMIAM AMIPMIPM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PMI
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 , 10 11 12 1 , 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _ 9 10 11
111 Average Speed 85th Speed Maximum Speed
I7
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Office Space
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code(710) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
14,000 SF 19 3 22 4 17 21
Drive-in Bank
Adjacent Street Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code (912) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
1,800 SF 13 9 22 22 22 44
Specialty Retail
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code (826) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total _ Enter Exit Total
40,380 SF 16 17 33 52 66 118
Apartments
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code(220) AM Peak Hour - PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
142 Units 15 58 73 62 34 96
Total 63 87 150 140 139 279
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2011037.00 Fowler's Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
1000's SF AM -PM
General Office Building(710) 14.0
Trip Generation Summary
Avg Rate 1.56 1.49 Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Coda(710) Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
14.000 SF 19 3 22 4 17 21
Total Trips AM/PM 22 21
AM Entering 88% 19
AM Exiting 12% 3
PM Entering 17% 4
PM Exiting 83% 17
I
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. 4/9/2013 Page 1
i
2011037,00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
1000's SF AM PM
Drive-n Bank[912) 1.800 •
Adacent Street
Avg Rale 12.08 24.30
Ad)acent Street Trip Generation Seminary
Land Use AM Peak Hoot PM Peak Hour
Total Trips AM/PM 22 44 Cede(912)Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
1,800SF 13 9 22 22 22 44
•
•
AM Entering 57% 13
AM Exiling 43% 9
PM Entering 50% 22 _
PM Exiting 50% 22
I
GreenmamPedersen,Inc, 419/2013 Pago 1
I
2011037.00 Fowler's Square TIS Town of Queensbun/
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
1000's SF AM PM
Specialty Retail Center(626) 40.4
Adjacent Street Trip Generation Summary
Avg Rale 2.71 Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Trips PM =2.4X+21.46 158 Code(826)Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Ration AM/PM Shopping Center 0.276 40,380 16 17 33 52 66 118
Total Trips AM 33
AM Entering 48% 16
AM Exiting 52% 17
PM Entering 44% 52
PM Exiting 56% 66
1
I
1
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. 4/9/2013 Page 1
1
2011037.00 Fowler's Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
r1 of Units AM PM
Apartment(220) 142
Adjacent Street
Avg Rate 0.51 0.62
Trip Generation Summary
Total Trips AM=0.49X+3.73 73 Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Trip;PM=0.55X•17.65 96 Cude(220)Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
142 Units 15 58 73 62 34 96
AM Entering 20% 15
AM Exiting 80% 58
PM Entering 65% 62
PM Exiting 35% 34
I
Greenrnan•Pedersen,Inc. 4/9/2013 Page 1
I
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKS HI;ETS •
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2013 AM Peak Hour Existing Conditions
Moyermt _._ __- EBL EBT EBR . WBL - _WBT___WBR -NBL NBT -. .NE0 __ SBLSBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ 11 '+ II +
Volume(vph) 52 80 71 32 106. 24 61 110 31 28 208 110
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0,95 0.98 1.00 0.97 . 1.00 0.95
Fit Protected 0,99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Fiow.(prot) 1780 1810 1805 1812 1805 1790
Flt Permitted 0.88 0.90 0.54 1.00 0.65 1.00
Satd,Flow(perm) 1587 1641 1017 1812 1230 1790
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 57 88 78 38 125 28 75 136 38 30 221 117
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 223 0 0 191 0 75 159 0 30 309 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type- Perm NA Perm NA Perm. NA Perm. NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases - 4- 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 ' 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 473 489 531 946 642 935
v/s Ratio Prot - 0.09 c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.12 0.07 0.02
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.39 0.14 0.17 0.05 0.33
Uniform Delay,d1 19.2 18.7 8.3 8.4 7.8 9.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.3 2,3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.9
Delay(s) 22.5 21.0 8.8 8.8 8.0 10.2
Level of Service C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 22.5 21.0 8.8 10.0
Approach LOS C C A B
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2013 PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions
f - C '- 1\ t , `*- l 4/
Movement .-_._._ , .EBL EBT__ _- EBR WBL : WBT__ WBR NBL.__ NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4). 4, >i T I 1
Volume(vph) 141 - 121 60 35 105 51 68 269 54 39 175 99
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.97 1,00 0.95
Fit Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prof) 1806 1786 1805 1828 1805 1786
Flt Permitted 0.75 0.88 0.58 1.00 0.50 1.00
Said,Flow(perm) 1382 1592 1100 1828 - 944 1786
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 158 136 67 41 124 60 80 316 64 41 186- 105
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 361 0 0 225 0 80 369 0 41 260 0
Heavy Vehicles(%J 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA. Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s). .6.0 - 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 412 475 574 954 493 932
v/s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.14 0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio 0.88 0.47 0.14 0.39 0.08 0.28
Uniform Delay,d1 22.3 19.2 8.2 9.6 8.0 8.9
Progression Factor 1.00 . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 22,1 3.4 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.7
Delay(s) 44.5 22.6 8.7 10.8 8.3 9.7
Level of Service D C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 44.5 22.6 10.4 9.5
Approach LOS D C B A
Intersection Summary _
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
i
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
j 3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour No-Build Conditions
__ j 4- & 4\ t /' \'' 't 4/
Movement --_- EBL _EBT _ EBR WBI. -__WB1 WBR __.NBL : NBT _ NBR SBL___SBT . SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ IS t* IN T#
Volume(vph) 55 84 75 33 112 26 64 116 32 29 219 116
IdeaiFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Utii.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Said.Flow(prof) 1780 1809 1805 1812 1805 1790
Fit Permitted 0.88 0.90 0.52 1.00 0.64 1.00
Said.Flow(perm) 1584 1652 985 1812 1220 1790
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 60 92 82 39 132 31 79 143 40 31 233 123
{ RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 234 0 0 202 0 79 168 0 31 328 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type - Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA, Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35,0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g1C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 .6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0-
I Lane Grp Cap(vph) 472 493 514 946
0.09 637 935
Ws Ratio Prot c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.12 0.08 0.03
I v/c Ratio 0.50 0.41 0.15 0.18 0.05 0.35
Uniform Delay,d1 19.3 18.8 8.3 8.4 7.8 9.4
Progression Factor • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.7 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.0
Delay(s.) 23.0 21.3 8.9 8.8 8.0 10.4
Level of Service C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) - 23.0 21.3 8.9 - 10.2
I Approach LOS C C A B
jntersection Summary . - -- - .
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 •
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
Ic Critical Lane Group
I
I
i 2011001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
I
i HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour No-Build Conditions
-0* - -- t c 4 4\ t r` \* l 4/
I
Movement - EBL____EBT_.. _EBR _ WBL WBT WBR__. NBL NBT NBR SB.L- SBT. SBR
Lane Configurations 4 4+ _ ''I T+ '11 1
Volume(vph) 148 128 63 36 110 54 72 283 57 41 184 104
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
FIE Protected 0.98 0,99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1806 1785 1805 1828 1805 1786
Fit Permitted 0.74 0.88 0.56 1.00 0.48 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1365 1583 1071 1828 910 1786
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 166 144 71 42 129 64 85 333 67 44 196 111
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 381 0 0 235 0 85 389 0 44 276 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 407 472 559 954 475 932
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.15 0.08 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.94 0.50 0.15 0.41 0.09 0.30
Uniform Delay,d1 22.9 19.4 8.3 9.7 8.0 9.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 31.1 3.7 0.6 1.3 0.4 0.8
Delay(s) 54.0 23.1 8.9 11.0 8.4 9.9
Level of Service D C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 54.0 23.1 10.6 9.7
Approach LOS D C B A
.
intersection Summary; •
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
Movement_- _ . ____ EBL _ - EBT___EBR _ WBL__:_WBT', WBR__ NBL NBT_ • NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations <1r 4 ) . I ) I+
Volume(vph)- 57 91 75 • • 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 .6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 • 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prof) 1784 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Fit Permitted 0.87 0.91 0.51 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1580 1656 975 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0
3 Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 245 0 0 209 0 79 179 0 31 334 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3°l° 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
I Lane Grp Cap(vph) 471 494 509 946 631 935
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 0.08 0.03
1 v/c Ratio 0,52 0.42 0.16 0.19 0.05 0.36
Uniform Delay,di 19.5 18.9 8.3 8.5 7.8 9.4
Progression Factor . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 4.1 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.1
Delay(s) 23.6 21:5 9.0 8.9 8.0 10.5
Level of Service C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 23.6 21.5 8.9 10.3
S Approach LOS C C A B
Intersection_Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
I HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
ic Critical Lane Group
I
I
i 2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
1
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
Movement__ . __: __ EBL, EBR-- -NBL NBT SBT SBFR •
Lane Configurations r t Tr
Volume(veh/h) 9 43 32 212 327 6 -
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 325
.vCu,unblocked vol 664 329 332
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
IC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 • 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(veh/h) 590 690 1187
Direction,t ane#- ---.- . EB 1 . EB 2 NB_1 _Na 2 SB 1 -- _-
Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 - 48 0 0 7
cSH 590 690 1187 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.6 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.7 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
intersection Summary •
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
—+ c 4— 4\ /*
Movement . . EBT • EBR . ..WBL WBT Ni3L' . NBR
Lane ConfigurationsVf
Volume(vehm) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal.(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked 0.98
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251 .
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 591 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 . 6.4 6.2
IC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) - 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(veh/h) 1302 458 788
birecpon,Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB.1
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 513
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 .0.08
Queue Length 95th(ff) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
I J -÷ - 'I 4- & 4\ f p \i' 4, d
Movement . - _ERE. _ _EBT EBR WBL ___ WBT WBR NBL _ NBT NBR SBL SBT _ SBR
Lane Configurations 4 _ 4 11 1 't 1
1 Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Fit Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1808 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.73 0.87 0.55 1.00 0.47 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 1345. 1571 1050 1828 887 1788
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 250 0 85 403 0 44 289 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 •
20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 401 468 548 954 463 934
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.29 0.16 0.08 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.99 0.53 0.16 0.42 0.10 '0.31
Uniform Delay,d1 23.4 19.6 8.3 9.8 8.0 9.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Incremental Delay,d2 41.4 4.3 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.9
Delay(s) 64.7 23.9 8.9 11.2 8.4 10.0
Level of Service E C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 64.7 23.9 10.8 9.8
Approach LOS E C B A
.
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
I
2013001.00 Fowler's Square T1S Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
I
1
i
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
4\ t / 4
Movement _ .. ..: ___ EBL. EBR__ NBL NBT `_ -SBT- ....SBR
Lane Configurations +
Volume(veh/h) I 12 60 60 412 283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Facto r 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s) .
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
I Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99
vC,conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 321
vC2,stage 2 conf vol - 626
vCu,unblocked vol 944 315 321
IC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4 -.
tF(s) - 3.5 3.3 2.2 . .
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
I cM capacity(vehlh) 459 722 1232 '
Direction,Lane:# • EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 .. 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 722 1232 1700 1700
I Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delays) 13.1 10.5 8.1 0.0 0.0
I Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
I
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% .ICU Level of Service A
I •
Analysis Period(min) 15
. .
1
I
i 2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
i
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
—0" c 1— 4\ !
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR .
Lane Configurations 'r,r 4'
Volume(veh/h) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph). 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage -
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(veh/h) 1138 366 649
Dfr.?ction_t-ane:#__ _ ER 1 WB 1 ..:N.B 1 :_ - = —
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right - 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 151
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary - -
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
I
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
f -. C 4- k- t r \* 1 1
Movement EBL EBT.. _EBR _..WBL WBT W13R NBL NBT NBR SBL _ - SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 4 4 ' T., ''i I
Volume(vph) 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
IdealFlow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 - 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1784 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Flt Permitted 0.87 0.91 0.45 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1580 1659 848 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0,91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 245 0 0 209 0 79 177 0 31 331 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Effective Green,g(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 711 746 296 634 422 626
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.07 0.53
Uniform Delay,d1 10.7 10.4 14.0 14.0 13.0 15.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 1.3 0.9 2.2 1.1 0.3 3.2
Delay(s) 12.1 11.3 16.2 15.1 13.3 18.7
Level of Service B B B B B B
Approach Delay(s) 12.1 11.3 15.4 18.3
Approach LOS B B B B
Intersection Summary . • - . . . .:
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 -
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen,inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
MovementBL EBR NBL N)3T__..,.SST SBR _ ___ _ .
Lane Configurations ] r 1 I+
Volume(veh/h) 9 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 325
vCu,unblocked vol 632 283 287
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2.
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(vehlh) 593 704 1188
Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB.2 ND 1 NB`2 $13,1
Volume Total 10 48 . 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right . 0 48 0 0 7
cSH 593 704 1188 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 5 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.5 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.6 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
--► '� f 4— . f►
Movement Ct3T -EBR WBL_._WBT NBL: NBR_
Lane Configurations 1 4 'V
• Volume (vehlh) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0°/0 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None •
Median storage vet))
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf f vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 609 251
EC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM-capacity(veh/h) 1302 456 788
pirection,Lane# EB WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 262 351 - 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 511
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% . ICU Level of Service A.
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
-1' -. c 4- 44\ t t `► 1 I
Movement _ EBL EBT.. -EBR -__.WBL VBT . WBR _ NBL .NBT NBR.___SBL __ BT -SBf
Lane Configurations c +4 'I "1 1
Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 120 _ 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
I Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1808 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.77 0.88 0.50 1.00 0.38 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1417 1590 954 1828 722 1788
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64. 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 250 0 85 402 0 44 286 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Effective Green,g(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 . 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 637 715 333 639 252 625
v/s Ratio Prot . c0.22 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.16 0.09 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.35 .0.26 0.63 0.17 0.46
Uniform Delay,d1 12.6 10.8 13.9 16.3 13.5 15.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 4.5 1.3 1.8 4.7 1.5 2..4
Delay(s) 17,1 12.1 15.8 20.9. 15.0 17.5
Level of Service B B B C B B
Approach Delay(s) 17.1 12.1 20.0 17.2
Approach LOS B B C B
Intersection Summary -- ---- _
HCM 2000 Control Delay 17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service. D
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
T
Movement.-- EEL EBR NBL _NBJ_ SBT SBR . - -.--
Lane Configurations .
Volume(veh/h) 12 60 60 412 283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC,conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 321
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 626
vCu,unblocked vol 927 279 285
IC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM capacity(veh/h) .459 734 1232
pirecbon;Lane# • EB 1 0 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 734 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 7 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.4 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.8 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU Level of Service A
( Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TtS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
c 1— 4\ r
Movement EBT• EBR, WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations 4' V'
Volume(veh/h) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
IC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(veh/h) - 1138 366 649
Direction,Lane# -EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) - 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
•
2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
-fr --- { 4_ 4 4\ I t ,, 4/
Movement.___ __. EBL- EBT.. _. EBR WBL WBT- :_WBR . NBL._ NBT NBR SBL___._SeT. SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+ ' T., )
Volume(vph) - - . 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor _ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 '1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1784 1810- - 1805 1812 1805 1791
Flt Permitted 0.86 0.90 0.55 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1559 1640 1036 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) _ 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 245 0 0 209 - 0 79 177 0 31 329 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases- 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 9.1 9.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Effective Green,g(s) 9.1 9.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 - 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 391 412 432 755 503 747
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 0.08 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.51 0.18 0.23 0.06 0.44
Uniform Delay,d1 12,0 11.6 6.7 6.8 6.3 7.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4
Delay(s) 15.2 12.6 6.9 7.0 6.4 7.9
Level of Service B B A A A A
Approach Delay(s) 15.2 12.6 6.9 7.8
Approach LOS B B A A
Intetsection.Summary ._;:
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 36.2 Sum of lost lime(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
•
t
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
I4\ t '1' 4/Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT . SBT __SBR ; - __ . _ . _ . .. _ _...
Lane Configurations li r '1 i Tr
1 Volume(veh/h) 9 43 32 212 327 6
1 Sign Control Stop - Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
1 Peak Hour Factor Hourly flow rate(vph) 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
I Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
I Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) TWLTL
pX,platoon unblocked
I vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 325
I vCu,unblocked vol 691 367 370
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 • 2.2
I p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(veh/h) 588 679 1189
Direction,Lane;#___ EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 _ SB 1
I Volume Total Volume Left 10 48 38 249 370
10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0_ 48 0 . 0 7
cSH 588 679 1189 1700 1700
I Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.7 8.1 0.0 0.0
1 Lane LOS B B A
t Approach Delay(s) 10.8 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
I Intersection,Summary - ...._ --- - . . . -
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
I
Analysis Period(min) 15
I
I
I 2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
---► "i c .-- '\ l`
Movement EBT EBR WBL_ WBT_ NBL —_ NBR ._ _.. . - _ ___
Lane Configurations 4 '
Volume(veh/h) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade. - 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 . 29 10.
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 609 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2,2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(veh/h) 1302 456 788
Direction;Lane# EB 1 WB 1 .NB 1 - — -
t Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 511
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0,0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
- Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
-► `a c "- � T /* 4. 4/
Movement EBL EBT_ ___EBR WBL -._WILT WBR NBL___NBT - NBR_.--..SBL SBT . SBR
Lane Configurations _ 4+ 4+ 1 I). "i 1
Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194- 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
I Fit Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Said.Flow(prot) 1808 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.77 0.87 0.55 1.00 0.42 1.00
Said.Flow(perm) 1430 1575 1049 1828 796 1788
Peak-hour tactor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 34 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 250 0 85 402 0 44 285 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 17.7 17.7 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
Effective Green,g(s) 17.7 17.7 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 568 626 348 607 264 594
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.16 0.08 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.66 0.17 0.48
Uniform Delay,d1 11.2 9.6 10.8 12.7 10.5 11.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.7 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.3 0.6
Delay(s) 14.8 10.0 11.2 15.4 10.8 12.4
Level of Service B B B B B B .
Approach Delay(s) 14.8 10.0 14.7 12.2
Approach LOS B B B B
-
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 44.5 Sum of lost lime(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D
I Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
I
I
I 2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
Movement _ -. .-. - -- _EBL EBR _. NBL NBT : SBT SBR .
Lane Configurations r
Volume(vehfh) 12 60 60 412 -283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% • 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,confiding volume 947 321 328
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 321
•
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 626 •
vCu,unblocked vol 947 321 328
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM.capacity(veh/h) . 459 720 1232
lJirection,Lane# EB 1 EB 2• NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 =___ - -
4 Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 720 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 8.1 0.0 :0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32,3% ICU.Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
--0 { 41-- 4\
Movement _ EBT EBR _ WBL WBT __,NBL. NBR_._ _
Lane Configurations 1+ 4 V.
Volume(veh/h) 339 . 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 . 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(veh/h) 1138 366 649
birec>fon,Lane# .-- EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 -
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection-Summary _ _ _
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
I' -4' ~S' 1- 4- 4`- *v t r* 1 I
Movement ______ __._ _. EBt_ EBT EBR WBL WBT-_WBR ._ _NBL NBT NBR __ SBL_ SBT SBR
Lane Configurations 11 1+ 4'. •i 1+ i 1+
Volume(vph) 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost lime(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Utit.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fri 1.00 0.93 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prof) 1805 1762 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Flt Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.91 0.51 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1185 1762 1660 975 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 63 182 0 0 209 0 79 179 0 31 334 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 . 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 353 525 495 509 946 631 935
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.10 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.13 0.08 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.18 0.35 0.42 0.16 0.19 0.05 0.36
Uniform Delay,dl 17.4 18.4 18.9 8.3 8.5 7.8 9.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 1.8 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.1
Delay(s) 18.5 20.2 21.5 9.0 8.9 8.0 10.5
Level of Service B C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 19.8 21.5 8.9 10.3
Approach LOS B C A B
intersection Summary _
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
• Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
Movement _ ._ EBL EBR ,N@L- Nu_ $BT SBR._..._
Lane Configurations r T �r
Volume(veh(h) 9 43 32 21-2 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2;stage 2 conf vol 325 _
vCu,unblocked vol 664 329 332
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s). 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(veh/h) 590 690 1187
Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1
Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 48 0 0 7
cSH 590 690 1187 1700 1700
Volume to.Capacity - 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.6 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.7 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
•
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
c 4— 4N l'
Movement - . _EBT EBR -WBL __ WET. N$L __NB
Lane Configurations '+ 4 V
Volume(vehlh) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls) .
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked 0.98
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf,vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 591 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) - 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 1302 458 788
Direction,=Lane.# . EB 1 WB 1 .NB 1 :t-- -
Volume Total 262 351 • 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 513
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. Page 3
1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
f _ c 4- 4\ t p `► 1 4'
Jytovem'enf_ . :_.__.... ____.EBL__. EBT EBR. WBL WBT WBR _ NBL- _ NBT NBR SBL SBT._ SBR
Lane Configurations '+t 1 4+ II 1 '1 1
Volume(vph) 150. 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fri- 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1805 1798 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.90 0.55 1.00 0.47 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1082 1798 1626 1050 1828 • 887 1788
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 169 226 0 0 250 0 85 403 0 44 289 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) _ 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type . Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6:0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 322 536 485 548 954 463 934
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.22 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.15 0.08 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.42 0.52 0.16 0.42 0.10 0.31
Uniform Delay,di 19.5 18.9 19.5 8.3 9.8 8.0 9.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-.00
Incremental Delay,d2 6.0 2.4 3.9 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.9
Delay(s) 25.6 21.3 - 23.4 8.9 11.2 8.4 10.0
Level of Service C C C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 23.1 23.4 10.8 9.8
Approach LOS C C B A
intersection Summary _._ -- _---- ._ .._-
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.9 HCM 2000 Level of f Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46 .
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
3
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
f t d
IMovement . .-_---• EBL . ESR_ . fdi _ NBT SBT_ -_ SDB__ .
Lane Configurations ) If li I' 'Fr
I Volume(veh/h)Sign Control 12 60 60 412 283 12
Stop Free Free
Grade - 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
1 Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
I Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
1 Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99
I vC,conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 321
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 626
vCu,unblocked vol 944 315 321
I tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 -
•
I p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM capacity(veh/h) 459 ,722 1232
Direction,Lane# EB 1 EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 -- ___ . __ -
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 722 1232 1700 1700
I Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 . 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 8.1 0.0 0.0
I Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
I Intersection-Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU'Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
I
i
1 2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
i
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
A - t
Movement .EBT.__,EBR WBL WBT BL_ NBR:
-
Lane Configurations 4'
Volume(veh/h) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401 -
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6,2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3,5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(veh/h) 1138 366 649
Direction,.Lane# EB 1-- W6,1_ NB-1
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity.Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service . A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
' HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
f -* c 4-- & 4\ t / \* 4/
Movement_ ,_ EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL . .NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations ) '+ 4 11 1 'I T
I Volume(vph)
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 • 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.93 0.98 1.00 0.97. 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1805 1762 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
I Flt Permitted 0.81 1.00 0.89 0.55 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1546 1762 1621 1036 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
I RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 63 182 0 0 209 0 79 177 0 31 329 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
I Turn Type Protected Phases Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
I Actuated Green,G(s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Actuated WC Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
I Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 365 416 383 440 770 513 761
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.10 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.13 0.08 0.03
11 v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.55 0.18 0.23 0.06 0.43
Uniform Delay,d1 10.8 11.5 11.9 6.3 6.5 6.0 7.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
I Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4
Delay(s) 11.0 12.3 13.5 6.5 6.6 6.1 7.6
Level of Service B B B A A A A
Approach Delay(s) 12.0 13.5 6.6 7.5
i Approach LOS B B A A
Intersection Summary_._____ _ _ - __
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 35.5 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B
I Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
i
I
I 2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
•
' ' ' '\ 1 j
__ _ EEL: . ERR _hNI L----NET SBT' -SBR-_.__ . -
= Movement. - - -- ------- - -
Lane Configurations ' j vl ' t+ .
Volume(veh/h) 9 . 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 -363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
t Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
I Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked
I vC,conflicting volume 693671 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 325
vCu,unblocked vol 691 367 370
I tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
IC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) - 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
I cM capacity(veh/h) 588 679 1189
Direction,Lane# - EB.1 - EB 2 NB 1 NB 2 SB 1 - - .. --
` Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right . 0 48 0 0 7
cSH 588 679 1189 1700 1700
I Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 • 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.7 8.1 0.0 0.0
I Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.8 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
Intersection Su
I mmary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection.Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
IAnalysis Period(min) 15
I
I
I 2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen,Inc. Page 2
I
I '
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
—+ c w--- 4\ /*
Movement EB7_ __E_13_13_ .. WBL ._ WBT . NBL NBR
Lane Configurations 1+ 4' V . . . .
I Volume(veh/h)Sign Control 214 19 6 292 26 9
Free Free Stop
Grade - 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
1 Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width(It)
I Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
I Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
I vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 609 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
f IC,2 stage(s)
IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
I p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(veh/h) 1302 456 788
Direction,Lane;# EB 1 ._WBI NB-1- - .
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 . 0 10 -
cSH 1700 1302 511
I Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
I Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay{s} 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
I lntersectin Summary.
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
i
I
2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman Pedersen Inc. Page 3
1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
-* N* c k' 4\ t t \. l 1
JA.ovement. _ _ , _EBL__._ EBT____ EBR__ WBL:_ WBT..__ WBR NBL. ._.NBT ..N.BR.. . SBL ___SBT _SBR
Lane Configurations ''j T 4 I ) l
Volume(vph) _ _ 150 138 63 38 - 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1805 1798 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.89 0.57 1.00 0.48 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1362 1798 1605 1077 1828 915 1788
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj,.Flow(vph) . 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 37 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 169 226 0 0 250 0 85 400 0 44 282 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm _ NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 - 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2
Effective Green,g(s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 417 551 492 404 686 343 671
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.22 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.16 0.08 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.21 0.58 0.13 0.42
Uniform Delay,d1 10.4 10.4 10.8 8.0 9.4 7.7 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.5 0.8 0,3 1.3 0.2 0.4
Delay(s) 11.0 10.9 11.6 8.3 10.7 7.9 9.2
Level of Service B B B A B A A
= Approach Delay(s) 10.9 11.6 10.3 9.0
Approach LOS B B B A
intersection Summary__ _ __ _ - -_ -- --------
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 37.8 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
1
1 2013001.00 Fowlers Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen,inc. Page 1
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
f '\ t 4* 4/
IMovement _._:. EBL_ __ EAR_ __ NBL NBT SBT_ _SBR
Lane Configurations ) rt. ) + 1+
I Volume(veh/h)Sign Control 12 60 60 412 283 12
Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
1 Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
i Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
I Walking Speed(Ws)
Percent Blockage •
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
I Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 947 321 328
IvC1,stage 1 conf vol 321
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 626
vCu,unblocked vol 947 321 328
I tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4 1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
IF(s) . 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
IcM capacity(veh/h) 459 720 1232
Direction,Lane# EB 1 , EB 2_ NB 1 NB 2 SB 1.-_ _._
Volume_Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right - 0 . 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 720 1232 1700 1700
I Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 81 0.0 0.0
I Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
•
ritersection Summary
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
I
i
I
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
I
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
I
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
— { 4-- 4\
- Movement EBT •EBR` WBL WBT NBL . NBR
Lane Configurations '3 4
Volume(veh/h) 339 36 12. 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(Ws)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(veh/h) 1138 366 649
Direction,Lane# EB 1 WB 1 NB 1
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1 •
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 . 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary -
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
•
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman=Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
i
i
i
i •
i
Alb-2011037.00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
1
Bay Road Northbound Bay Road Southbound
! Trial Speed* Trial Speed*
1 44 1 46 85th Percentile Speeds
2 39 2 46 NB SB
3 45 3 38 46 48
4 44 4 45
5 39 5 47
6 43 6 43
7 49 7 48
8 44 8 49
9 45 9 43
10 44 10 47
11 42 11 46
12 41 12 47
13 43 13 42
14 49 14 44
15 44 15 48
16 46 16 48
17 45 17 44
18 44 18 45
19 46 19 43
20 41 20 48
21 43 21 46
22 45 22 44
23 43 23 43
24 47 24 46
25 42 25 46
Avg. 43.9 Avg. 45.3
* -Denotes speed measured near proposed site entrance for vehicles traveling under free flow conditions.
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Alb-2011037.00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Blind Rock Eastbound Blind Rock Westbound
Trial Speed* Trial Speed*
1 45 1 41 85th Percentile Speeds
2 39 2 38 EB WB
3 38 3 39 43 40
4 39 4 38
5 41 5 37
6 43 6 42
7 38 7 39
8 42 8 44
9 43 9 40
10 48 10 35
11 35 11 36
12 40 i 12 38
13 38 13 40
14 40 14 39
15 37 15 38
16 36 16 40
17 40 17 39
18 38 18 42
19 43 19 37 _
20 42 20 37
21 42 21 36
22 44 22 35
23 39 23 38
24 40 24 37
25 39 25 37
Avg. 40.4 Avg. 38.5
*-Denotes speed measured near proposed site entrance for vehicles traveling under free flow conditions.
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.
From: Faith. Peter
To: Matthew Fuller
Cc: Dan Galusha; Bob Manz; Mike Ingersoll
Subject: FW: Fowler Square
Date: Wednesday,April 10,2013 8:41:12 AM
Attachments: image001.pnq
Fowler Souare TIS w Appendix APR13.odf
Matt -- Here is our Traffic Study for Fowler Square. It documents that there are no significant
impacts due to the project and includes a discussion of our recent meetings and efforts with the
County and Town Highway Departments.
Let me know if you need anything else at this time.
Peter Faith, P.E.
518 55545
\
This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use of The individual or entity named as the addressee It may
contain information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law, If you are not the intended recipient or such recipients
employee or agent you are hereby notified that any dissemination,copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited and
to notify the sender immediately.
Department of Community
I pr
Development
=, Queensbury Planning Board
Staff Notes
December 15, 2011
1 APPLICATION: Site Plan 62-2011 /Area Variance 61-2011
APPLICANT: Queensbury Partners
( REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the
relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential
I impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community
LOCATION: Corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
EXISTING ZONING: 0-Office
ISEQRA STATUS: Type I
WARREN CO. PB: N/A for 12/15/11
IPARCEL HISTORY: Sub 13-1999 35.12 acre parcel - 14 commercial lots
Approved 8/15/2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Plan: Applicant proposes a total of 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial development distributed between five
I (5)buildings and development of 175 residential apartment units distributed between 11 buildings to
include 93 residential units within four(4)of the proposed commercial structures.
Freshwater Wetlands: Land disturbance with 100 feet of a regulated wetland.
I Area Variance: Relief requested from density, front setback,travel corridor setback,residential setback
and height requirements of the Office zone. Further, relief requested from wetland setback requirements.
I STAFF COMMENTS: Changes to the plan for this review include the re-orienteering of Building 5 to
totally be within the 300 foot setback for residential structures and corresponding change to parking
configuration. Further change also deals with building 5 and includes the elimination of ground floor
I residential units in favor of commercial/office space. It is understood that the project is contingent upon
Zoning Board of Appeals approvals of variances of which little indication was offered from the ZBA
concerning these issues at the joint meeting in August.
IThe applicant is before the Planning Board in order to garner a recommendation to the ZBA concerning the
variances requested and their potential impacts on the surrounding community. Apparently the applicant
I has not commenced detailed engineering or design portion of the project. Further, the project is listed as a
Type I action under SEQRA and will require both the Planning Board and ZBA to commence the protocols
I
f
as set forth for this type of action, in particular Lead Agency. As such, no Planning Board recommendation
can be forwarded to the ZBA at this point in time and no ZBA decision can be rendered until SEQR has
been completed. However, staff believes that this does not preclude the Planning Board from forwarding
the minutes of this meeting or any other communication it would deem beneficial for the ZBA to review.
Variances required as presented:
1. Density- 142 residential units allowed/ 175 proposed. Calculation based on 1 acre per 8 dwelling
units as per §179-3-040B(2)(b)[1][b]. 17.81 buildable acres x 8 units = 142 units. Note: Usable
acreage after deducting the commercial uses proposed is as follows: 21.83 usable acres on
parcel; 0.5 acres/7,000 square feet with 56,180 square feet commercial development proposed
results in 4.02 acres utilized for commercial density calculation. 21.83 acres-4.02 acres =
17.81 acres remaining for residential density.
2. Residential units within 300 feet of Bay Road Professional Office setback line as per §179-3-
( 040B(2)(a)[1].
3. Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO)-Buildings 1 and 3 within 75 foot setback requirement.
Further, parking associated with buildings 1 and 3 within 75 foot green space requirement. All as
per §179-4-030C.
4. Front setback-Buildings 1, 3, 11, and 13 within 75 foot front setback requirement as per §179-3-
040.
5. Wetland setback-Buildings 8, 9, 10, and 13 within 75 foot wetland setback requirement as per
§179-3-040.
6. Height-As per Development Study on Site Statistics page, it is assumed all but buildings 3 and 6
would require height relief as per §179-3-040.
Variances in table form
300 ft. 75 Ft. Travel 75Ft. Front 75 Ft.
Building # Density Residential Corridor Setback Wetland Height
setback Overlay Setback
1 'I 4-268 ft.
�1-43 ft. �1-43 + 37ft. 4-3ft.
2 4 �1- 128 ft. �1- 14 ft.
3 J 4-45ft. I-45ft.
4 4 4- 138ft. I- 14ft.
5 4 4- 172ft. J- 14ft.
6 4
7 4 4-3ft.
8 ,I J- 11.6ft. 4-3ft.
9 ,J J- 16.4ft. J-3ft.
10 4 I-21.7ft. q-3ft.
11 4 4- 17.4ft. 4-3ft.
12 4 4-3ft.
13 4 J-5.3ft. J-44.6ft. 4-3ft.
Additional relief for parking within the 75 foot green space requirement associated with Buildings 1 and 3
will need to be considered by the ZBA
IPlease see density relief calculations above. Please note that density relief has been calculated for the
residential aspect of this proposal; relief could be designated for retail uses also.
L:\Keith Oborne\2011 Staff Notes\Planning\August 31\Queensbury Partners.doc
- 2 -
co
STATE OF NEW YORK l
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF WARREN
In the Matter of the Application of
KATHLEEN W. SONNABEND, DAVID L. THORNE,
LARA CURRIE and JOHN CURRIE,
DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioners,
RJI No.: 56-1-2013-0578
for a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 Index No.: 59266
-against-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD and QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,LLC,
Respondents.
Appearances:
Caffry&Flower(John W. Caffry,Esq., of counsel) Attorneys for the Petitioners
Meyer& Fuller,PLLC(Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., of counsel)Attorneys for
Queensbury Partners,LLC
Miller,Mannix, Schachner&Hafner,LLC (Leah Everhart,Esq.,of counsel)
Attorneys for Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning
Board
KROGMANN, J.
This Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR)matter concerns a
development project involving a 34 acre parcel of real property located at the corner of Bay and
Blind Rock Roads in the Town of Queensbury. The property is located within the zoning district
classified as"Office",
Procedural Summary
Initially,by Notice of Petition and Petitioner filed on August 23, 2013,the petitioners
sought judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 annulling the July 24 and August 21,2013
approvals by the respondent Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter referred
to as the"ZBA") of the area variance application submitted by respondent Queensbury Partners,
LLC (hereinafter referred to as"Applicant"); and determining that respondent Town of
Queensbury Planning Board(hereinafter referred to as the"Planning Board") may not approve
the site plan review application by the Applicant unless a use variance is first obtained for the
construction of multifamily dwellings in that portion of the zoning district located within 300 feet
of Bay Road.
Subsequently, an Amended Petition dated September 30, 2013 was filed seeking similar
relief as to the approvals granted by the ZBA but also seeking to annul,vacate and set aside the
August 27, 2013 approval of respondent Planning Board of the site plan review application of the
Applicant for the same project.
In a March 10,2014 Decision and Order of this Court, this Court denied respondent's
pre-answer motion to dismiss the petitioners' first,fourth and fifth causes of action. The appeal
of a certain November 10, 2011 letter from Municipal Respondent Zoning Administrator Craig
Brown was remanded back to the ZBA for consideration. The determination of the Zoning
Administrator was interpreted to mean that the Applicant did not need to obtain a use variance
but,rather an area variance for the proposed construction of residential building within 300 feet
of Bay Road as part of the overall project. The Amended Article 78 Petition was held in
abeyance pending further determination by the ZBA and, if necessary,by the Planning Board as
to the site plan review approval.
On June 4,2014,the ZBA denied the appeal and affirmed Brown's determination that the
Page 2 of 14
300 foot limitation in the Town Zoning Law constituted a dimensional limitation from which the
proper relief was an area variance by a vote of 4-3. By Second Amended Petition,petitioners
now also seek to annul,vacate and set aside the June 4, 2014 decision of the ZBA.
The Court references hereto and incorporates herein the previous Decisions and Orders of
the Court dated March 10, 2014 and August 22,2014.
Standing
Preliminarily, the respondents have argued that the petitioners lack standing to bring the
instant action. Respondents assert that Petitioner Kathleen Sonnabend lives 800 feet from the
subject area and not even in the same zoning district. Respondents further assert that although
Petitioner David Thorne lives off of Blind Rock Road and this property even borders the subject
lot,insofar as his deed is contingent,he lacks standing to sue'. Similarly, while Petitioners John
and Lara Currie own property on Bay Road near the subject area,the respondents allege that the
Curries have not submitted any evidence showing what, if any,negative impact the proposed
project would have on their property.
Petitioners assert that three of the four named petitioners received notice about the
proposed site plan review as they own property within 500 feet of the project site. Petitioner
Kathleen Sonnabend lives more than 500 feet from the proposed project,yet she has raised
concerns about the overall changes of the character of the area, increased traffic congestion issues
I ` Applicant's Memorandum of Law dated October 6 2014 asserts that peti
tioner petit er David
Thorne's interest is merely in remainder until the passing of Patti L. Thorne, however, without a
copy of the entire deed or instrument of conveyance, it is unclear what David Thorne's property
interest is. Nonetheless,David Thorne has submitted an affidavit wherein he attests that he has
resided in his home for 45 years and intends to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Page 3 of 14
1
and the ultimate effect the project would have on the Town's sewer system.'
"To establish standing in a proceeding to review administrative decision
making,petitioners must show that the proposed action will have a harmful effect
on them and that such harm is different than the injury suffered by the public at
large. However, standing is to be liberally construed so that land use disputes can
be resolved on their merits rather than by restrictive standing rules. If petitioners
can show that their premises are located in close proximity to the subject property,
then actual injury is not required for it is presumed that they will suffer an adverse
impact different in nature or degree than the public at Iarge(internal citations
omitted)." Manupella v. Troy City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 272 A.D.2d 761, 762
(3d Dept. 2000).
Insofar as the petitioners are all within reasonably close proximity to the proposed project
and their concerns asserted regarding increased traffic congestion as well'as the impact on the
gp
current sewer system, the petitioners have legitimate and specific arguments to support their
claim of standing. This project will have direct,tangible effects upon the neighborhood in which
the petitioners reside. Each of the named petitioners does not have to have the same concerns or
resulting potential impact from the project, but clearly each of the petitioners will be impacted by
the proposed plan. "The individual petitioners each established that they live in close proximity
to the project and that certain aspects of it,particularly traffic,would allegedly cause them
individualized harm." Defreestville Area Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Town of
N. Greenbush, 16 A.D.3d 715, 718 (3d Dept. 2005). "Even without establishing an injury in fact,
a person is presumed to have standing if he or she falls within the statute's zone of interests and
2 The sewer system has become a large part of the controversy. However, despite having
received additional information,post-argument and without leave, about the capacity of the
current system and the ability to sustain the needs if the project was built as proposed, the Court
has not considered same because of the improper submission and the timing of the same.
Page 4 of 14
I
I
his or her property is sufficiently proximate to the property at issue(internal citations omitted)."
The Fund for Lake George v. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,et al, A.D.3d
(3d Dept. 03/12/2015). As such,the Court will deny the respondents' challenge to standing
by these named petitioners.
De Novo Hearing
Petitioners challenge the ZBA's determination to approve the amended area variance on
July 24,2013 prior to referring the application to the Warren County Planning Department for
review pursuant to General Municipal Law§239-m. Petitioners allege that the July 24, 2013
approval of the area variance was a nullity without the benefit of the County Planning
Department's determination. The ZBA referred the subject application to the Warren County
Planning Department after its initial determination and the proper referral was then made to the
Warren County Planning Department. Upon referral, the Warren County Planning Department
subsequently determined that there would be no county impact resulting from the project when it
was reviewed on August 14,2013. As such, on August 21,2013,the ZBA voted to"re-affirm"
the July 24,2013 vote. Petitioners assert that the ZBA cannot"re-affirm"a vote which was a
nullity in the first instance and as such, the vote on August 21,2013 should have been after a de
novo hearing on the variance application.
"The alleged failure to comply with the referral provisions of the statute is not a mere
procedural irregularity but is rather a jurisdictional defect involving the validity of a legislative
act." Emalex Const. Realty Corp. v. City of Glen Cove, 256 A.D.2d 336, 338 (2d Dept. 1998);
also citing General Municipal Law§239-m. In this instance,the ZBA recognized that its'
determination rendered prior to the finding by the Warren County Planning Department because
IPage 5 of 14
of its failure to make the proper referral was in error. To correct this procedural irregularity,the
ZBA utilized the next opportunity to convene,to wit: August 21, 2013,to re-vote on the variance
application post-referral. While the petitioners challenge the teiiuinology"re-affirm",in essence,
the August 21, 2013 vote was based upon the information that was before the ZBA as of July 24,
2013. The subsequent vote, or affirmation of the previous vote,was merely a correction of a
technical error. The argument to the contrary is one of semantics not substance. If the ZBA had
tabled the vote on July 24, 2013 pending the determination of the Warren County Planning
Board,the ZBA would not have been required to re-open the hearing nor have had to undertake a
de novo review. Insofar as there was no new information acquired other than the County
Planning Department's determination of"no impact"3,there was no error in the ZBA's vote on
August 21, 2013. As such, that portion of the petition is denied.
Density
The petitioners have challenged the computation of the residential density insofar as they
argue that the 300 foot area from Bay Road should be excluded from the total acreage
calculation. Respondents argue that the petitioners have failed to raise this issue previously and
therefore,the petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and cannot now
raise this in the petition. Petitioners deny this allegation. Instead, petitioners reference various
letters and comments wherein the issue of the overall density was raised before the ZBA and
Planning Board.
Queensbury Town Code §1'79-16-090 indicates that"[a]n action, decision or ruling of the
3 Municipal respondents assert that the determination of"no impact"was also previously
indicated by the Warren County Planning Board in March 2013.
Page 6 of 14
1
Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to this chapter may be reviewed at the
instance of any aggrieved person in accordance with Article 78 of the CPLR,but application for
such review must be made not later than 30 days from the effective date of the decision or ruling
or the date when the action or omission occurred,whichever comes later." The Planning Board
conducted public hearings on April 23, May 23, July 23 and August 27, 2013 and approved the
site plan submitted by the Applicant on August 27, 2013.
Petitioners filed their original petition on August 23,2013 wherein they sought to prevent
the Planning Board from considering the site plan application in light of their argument that the
appropriate variance to be sought by the Applicant was a use variance instead of an area variance.
In light of the August 27, 2013 determination by the Planning Board,which was duly filed on
August 30, 20134,the petitioners filed an Amended Petition on October 1,2013. The Amended
Petition also challenged the Planning Board's determination.
Upon review of the documents,particularly those referenced by the petitioners to support
their argument that the issue of the calculation of density should not include the property in the
300 foot exclusion zone,the petitioners' argument is unavailing. The issue of density,per se,
was raised in the documents and meetings', however,the petitioners' arguments regarding the
calculations were not clear. It cannot be reasonably determined from the record that the
petitioners were specifically challenging the inclusion of the 300 foot area in the total acreage for
While there is not a date stamp on the resolution(R.631), footnote 2 of the Amended
Petition indicates that the document was filed with the Town Clerk on August 30, 2013.
5 Petitioners assert that the time to challenge the calculation did not begin until the
approval of the site plan because same was not specifically addressed prior to the site plan
approval.
Page 7of 14
I
allowed development. Notwithstanding same, the petitioners did clearly raise a general argument
regarding the density allowed.
Queensbury Town Code §Al 83-26 reads as follows:
"The maximum number of buildable lots for a conventional subdivision
shall be calculated as follows:
A. From the total area of the property to be subdivided, subtract:
1. Local, state, or federally regulated wetlands.
2. Water bodies, including but not limited to ponds, streams, rivers,
etc.
3. Rock outcrops.
4. Slopes in excess of 20%,to include both natural and man-made
slopes.
5. The area to be set aside for other public use, such as parkland.
6. The area to be occupied by the proposed streets or rights-of-way.
7. The area occupied by other public easements or rights-of-way
across the property such as major power or telephone lines.
B. Then divide the resulting figure(the remaining acreage)by the density
allowed in the zone in which the lots will be located specified in §179-3-
040 in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Law."
The petitioners had only objected to the density calculations per se during the relevant
proceedings. However, in the amended petition and second amended petition,the petitioners
expounded upon their theory as to why the calculations were inaccurate,to wit: that since the
Office District prohibits residential building within 300 feet of Bay Road, such prohibited space
cannot reasonably be built upon and therefore should not be included in the overall acreage
calculation for purposes of determining allowable density. Notwithstanding the petitioners'
previous failure to raise this specific argument, same will be addressed at this juncture. The
formula to determine density as described in Town Code §A183-26 does not specifically
Page 8 of 14
reference areas such as the 300 foot area at issue in this matter which area the petitioners of
course want to be subtracted from the acreage calculation. The area consisting of 300 feet from
Bay Road is not akin to a wetland where all construction is prohibited. Instead, it is an area
which could accommodate construction upon an appropriate variance. None of the other
exceptions contained within in the Town Code §AI 83-26 apply,and therefore, this disputed 300
foot area may properly be included in the overall density calculation and this portion of the
petition is denied.
Use vs Area Variance
In sum and substance, the heart of this matter is that the Petitioners object to the area
variance approval and the subsequent site plan approval upon the grounds that the ZBA erred in
granting an area variance rather than required a use variance. The petitioners argue that the ZBA
actually approved a use not allowed in the part of the Office District that is within 300 feet of
Bay Road. Petitioners cite the Queensbury Town Zoning Law §179-3-040(2),which states in
relevant part:
"Office. The Office District encompasses areas where professional offices
are encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential areas
where compatibility with residential uses is important. The Town desires to see
development of high-quality offices where structures and facilities are constructed
with particular attention to detail, including but not limited to architecture,
lighting, landscaping,signs, streetscape,public amenities,and pedestrian
connections. The Office District can.function as a transition zone protecting
residential zones from more intensive commercial uses,while providing
convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and
residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with
adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses.
(a) Uses allowed. The uses allowed in this district are set forth on
Table 3 of this chapter. In addition:
Page 9 of 14
[1] No residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of
Bay Road'.
[2] Both commercial and residential uses are allowed beyond
300 feet back from the arterial road (emphasis added)."
In the proposed project,the Applicant seeks to build mixed use residential and
commercial buildings within the 300 foot area along Bay Road. The petitioners argue that the
plain language of the permissible uses in the Queensbury Town Code specifically prohibit
residential buildings in the subject area and as such,a use variance was required. The petitioners
further argue that there are specific"dimensional requirements"listed under a separate
subparagraph(b) for which the subject 300 foot"setback"for residential space could have been
listed if it were merely a dimensional issue as opposed to a use issue.
The municipal respondents argue that the aforementioned relevant language in the
Queensbury Town Code has been misconstrued by the petitioners'. Municipal respondents assert
that inasmuch as the Residential use is allowed in the Office District,but with a caveat of more
than 300 feet from Bay Road,then an area variance is required to minimize the distance from
Bay Road or another arterial. The municipal respondents assert that to hold that residential
buildings within the 300 foot zone is a prohibited use as opposed to a dimensional requirement
would be to create a"subzone"in the Office District.
6 At the commencement of this action, Town Code §179-3-040(2)read"[1] No
residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road and West Mountain Road."
' Respondent Queensbury Partners,LLC (Applicant)agrees with and endorses the
position of the Municipal respondents.
Page 10 of 14
1
N.Y. Town Law§ 267 states in relevant part:
"(a) 'Use variance' shall mean the authorization by the zoning board of
appeals for the use of land for a purpose which is otherwise not allowed
or is prohibited by the applicable zoning regulations.
(b) 'Area variance' shall mean the authorization by the zoning board of
appeals for the use of land in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or
physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulations."
Petitioners argue that the language of Town Zoning Law §179-3-040(2)is quite clear, to
wit: that residential buildings are prohibited within the 300 feet area from Bay Road. While
residential use is permissible per se in the Office District,the Town Code explicitly carves out an
exception"no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road". Applicant argues
that if the proscription of residential building within 300 feet of Bay Road requires a use variance
as opposed to an area variance,the language is ambiguous and the ambiguity should be construed
in its favor. The Court disagrees.
"Where words of a statute are free from ambiguity and express plainly, clearly and
distinctly the legislative intent,resort may not be had to other means of interpretation." N.Y.
Stat. Law § 76. Insofar as the statute reads "no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet
of Bay Road" and the subparagraph heading is "Uses",the meaning is plain and unambiguous.
The Court notes that during the pendency of this petition, at a hearing held on June 16,
2014, the Town Board revised the language of Town Code §179-2-010(B)(2)to delete"West
Mountain Road"but specifically decided that the"Bay Road" designation remain. The
resolution was adopted by the Town Board on July 21, 2014. In addition, Table 3, which is
included at the end of Chapter 179 of the Town Code, was amended to add a footnote stating:
Page 11 of 14
"no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road."
"An area variance permits deviation from strict compliance with the
zoning ordinance's requirements for, as an example,the physical characteristics of
premises, so long as the purposes for which the premises are intended to be used
are permitted by the ordinance. However,a use variance often proposes a change
in the character of the premises and involves a utilization not permitted by the
ordinance (internal citations omitted)." Croissant v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
Town of Woodstock,Ulster Cnty., 83 A.D.2d 673, 674 (3d Dept. 1981).
Indeed, allowing the inclusion of mixed residential/commercial space within the 300 foot
exclusion zone of Bay Road would change the character of the subject area which is largely
office space and commercial buildings, with the exception of residences which may be a pre-
existing use. Moreover, during the pendency of this litigation, when presented with an
opportunity to amend the language regarding Bay Road as it did relative to West Mountain Road,
the Town Board opted to specifically reaffirm the 300 foot exclusion as to Bay Road. "While
courts must generally give great deference to a zoning board's interpretation of a local
ordinance—disturbing it only if it is irrational or unreasonable—deference is not required when
the issue is one of pure legal interpretation of a statute or ordinance." Mack v. Bd.of Appeals,
Town of Homer, 25 A.D.3d 977, 980(3d Dept. 2006). Herein, it is clear that the Office District
has proscribed residential use in the 300 foot exclusion zone from Bay Road.
"While stability and regularity are undoubtedly essential to the operation
of zoning plans, zoning is by no means static. Changed or changing conditions
call for changed plans,and persons who own property in a particular zone or use
district enjoy no eternally vested right to that classification if the public interest
demands otherwise. Accordingly, the power of a village to amend its basic zoning
ordinance in such a way as reasonably to promote the general welfare cannot be
questioned. Just as clearly, decision as to how a community shall be zoned or
Page 12 of 14
rezoned,as to how various properties shall be classified or reclassified, rests with
the local legislative body; its judgment and determination will be conclusive,
beyond interference from the courts, unless shown to be arbitrary, and the burden
of establishing such arbitrariness is imposed upon him who asserts it." Rodgers v.
Vill. of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 121 (1951).
It is of particular note that the.proposed development of the subject project has been a
long and tedious collaboration between the Applicant thereof,the participants from the
municipality and the public. The Court is aware that the original proposal did not include the
mixed use residential/commercial within the 300 foot area from Bay Road but was eventually
added at the request of the Planning Board. However, it is not appropriate for the Court to
interpret the law in such a manner as to coincide with the desires of the municipality when the
municipality has the legislative power to achieve its desired result.
Based upon the foregoing,the First, Second,Fourth and Fifth causes of action are
granted; the Third and Sixth causes of action are denied. As such,the August 21,2013 approval
by the ZBA of the area variance application is annulled and the resulting site plan approval based
upon the same,by the Planning Board on August 27,2013 is also annulled. The petitioners are
granted an award of costs and disbursements.
The within constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
ENTER:
04114 (
DAVID B. KROGMA
JUSTICE OF THE SU ME COURT
The Court is filing the original decision and order together with the original papers in the
appropriate County Clerk's Office. Attorney for Petitioners to comply with CPLR 2220.
Page 13 of 14
I
Distribution:
John W. Caffry,Esq.
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
Leah Everhart, Esq.
Page 14 of 14
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
COUNTY OF WARREN, STATE OF NEW YORK
LOCAL LAW No. of 2015
A LOCAL LAW ENACTING THE FOWLER SQUARE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, as follows:
Section 1. Legislative Findings and Intent.
Pursuant to Chapter 179, Article 12, of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, entitled
"Planned Unit Developments"the Town Board has reviewed a proposal for a planned
unit development known as "Fowler Square"to be located at the southwest corner of Bay
Road and Blind Rock Road in the Town of Queensbury. In accordance with said
Chapter 179, Article 12, the Town Board finds that Fowler Square satisfies the
requirements of said Chapter 179, Article 12, and hereby adopts this local law relative
thereto.
Section 2. Site specifics.
a. Residential density. No more than 142 residential dwelling units as set
forth on the plans and specifications shall be permitted.
b. Commercial density. No more than 56,180 square feet shall be permitted.
c. Site Plan Approval. Site plan approval has been granted for the residential
and commercial spaces with the exception of future commercial building
located in "Phase III" as noted on plan L 1.4. Individual commercial uses may
require site plan approval from the planning board prior to construction.
d. Phase III approval. Any construction for Phase III shall require approval
from the Town Board for conformity with the planned unit development
contained herein and shall require site plan approval from the Planning Board.
e. Setbacks:
i. Setbacks along Blind Rock Road shall be no less than 53 feet
ii. Setbacks along Bay Road shall be no less than 75 feet, provided that
this shall not include roof hangovers, light fixtures, deck overhangs
and limited pergolas for outdoor seating areas.
iii. Setbacks from all wetlands for building locations shall be 75 feet.
f. Height limits:
i. For the commercial/residential structures, height shall be limited to
54 feet.
g. Modifications. Any changes to the plans and specifications shall require
site plan approval.
Section 3. Severability.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Local Law or the
application thereof to any person, individual, corporation, firm, partnership, entity, or
circumstance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such order or judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the
remainder thereof,but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section, or part of this Local Law, or in its application to the
person, individual, corporation, firm,partnership, entity, or circumstance directly
involved in the controversy in which such order or judgment shall be rendered.
Section 14. Effective Date.
This chapter shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Full Environmental Assessment Form
Part 1-Project and Setting
Instructions for Completing Part 1
Part 1 is to be completed by the applicant or project sponsor. Responses become part of the application for approval or funding,
are subject to public review,and may be subject to further verification.
Complete Part 1 based on information currently available. If additional research or investigation would be needed to fully respond to
any item,please answer as thoroughly as possible based on current information;indicate whether missing information does not exist,
or is not reasonably available to the sponsor;and,when possible,generally describe work or studies which would be necessary to
update or fully develop that information.
Applicants/sponsors must complete all items in Sections A&B. In Sections C,D&E,most items contain an initial question that
must be answered either"Yes"or"No". If the answer to the initial question is"Yes",complete the sub-questions that follow. If the
answer to the initial question is"No",proceed to the next question. Section F allows the project sponsor to identify and attach any
additional information. Section G requires the name and signature of the project sponsor to verify that the information contained in
Part lis accurate and complete.
A.Project and Sponsor Information.
Name of Action or Project:
Fowler Square Planned Unit Development
Project Location(describe,and attach a general location map):
Southwest corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road,Town of Queensbury,Warren County
Brief Description of Proposed Action(include purpose or need):
The project is a planned unit development zoning adoption for a project involving the construction of 11 buildings,including multifamily,retail,office and
services,related water,sewer,electric and gas services,and related parking,access roads,sidewalks and amenities.
Name of Applicant/Sponsor: Telephone:5186682199
Queensbury Partners,LLC E-Mail:
mfuller@meyerfuller.com
Address:Ballard Road
•
City/PO:Wilton State:NY Zip Code:12831
Project Contact(if not same as sponsor;give name and title/role): Telephone:5186682199
Matthew F.Fuller E-Mail.
•mfuller@meyerfuller.com
Address:
Meyer&Fuller,PLLC 161 Ottawa Street
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Lake George NY 12845
Property Owner (if not same as sponsor): Telephone:
Same as sponsor E-Mail:
Address:
City/PO: State: Zip Code:
Page 1 of 13
B.Government Approvals
B.Government Approvals,Funding,or Sponsorship. ("Funding"includes grants,loans,tax relief,and any other forms of financial
assistance.)
Government Entity If Yes:Identify Agency and Approval(s) Application Date
Required (Actual or projected)
a.City Council,Town Board, ®Yes❑No Town Board Pending with this application
or Village Board of Trustees
b.City,Town or Village ®Yes❑No Planning Board Pending with this application
Planning Board or Commission
c.City Council,Town or ❑Yes®No
Village Zoning Board of Appeals
d.Other local agencies ❑Yes®No
e.County agencies ®Yes❑No DOT-Highway permit Preliminary approval
f.Regional agencies ❑Yes®No
g. State agencies ❑Yes®No
h.Federal agencies ❑Yes®No
i. Coastal Resources.
i. Is the project site within a Coastal Area,or the waterfront area of a Designated Inland Waterway? ❑Yes®No
ii. Is the project site located in a community with an approved Local Waterfront Revitalization Program? 0 Yes❑No
iii. Is the project site within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area? ❑Yes❑No
C.Planning and Zoning
C.1.Planning and zoning actions.
Will administrative or legislative adoption,or amendment of a plan,local law,ordinance,rule or regulation be the ®Yes❑No
only approval(s)which must be granted to enable the proposed action to proceed?
• If Yes,complete sections C,F and G.
• If No,proceed to question C.2 and complete all remaining sections and questions in Part I
C.2.Adopted land use plans.
a.Do any municipally-adopted (city,town,village or county)comprehensive land use plan(s)include the site ®Yes❑No
where the proposed action would be located?
If Yes,does the comprehensive plan include specific recommendations for the site where the proposed action ®Yes❑No
would be located?
b.Is the site'of the proposed action within any local or regional special planning district(for example: Greenway ❑Yes®No
Brownfield Opportunity Area(BOA);designated State or Federal heritage area;watershed management plan;
or other?)
If Yes,identify the plan(s):
c. Is the proposed action located wholly or partially within an area listed in an adopted municipal open space plan, ❑Yes®No
or an adopted municipal farmland protection plan?
If Yes,identify the plan(s):
Page 2 of 13
C.3. Zoning
a. Is the site of the proposed action located in a municipality with an adopted zoning law or ordinance. ®YesENo
If Yes,what is the zoning classification(s)including any applicable overlay district?
Office zone where planned unit developments are allowed.
b. Is the use permitted or allowed by a special or conditional use permit? ❑Yes®No
c.Is a zoning change requested as part of the proposed action? ®Yes❑No
If Yes,
i. What is the proposed new zoning for the site? Planned Unit Development
C.4.Existing community services.
a.In what school district is the project site located?Queensbury
b.What police or other public protection forces serve the project site?
State/Sheriff
c.Which fire protection and emergency medical services serve the project site?
Municipal fire district and EMS
d.What parks serve the project site?
NA
D.Project Details
D.1.Proposed and Potential Development
a.What is the general nature of the proposed action(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial,recreational;if mixed,include all
components)?
b.a.Total acreage of the site of the proposed action? 34.05 acres
b.Total acreage to be physically disturbed? +-11 acres
c.Total acreage(project site and any contiguous properties)owned
or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor? 34.05 acres
c.Is the proposed action an expansion of an existing project or use? ❑Yes®No
i. If Yes,what is the approximate percentage of the proposed expansion and identify the units(e.g.,acres,miles,housing units,
square feet)? % Units:
d.Is the proposed action a subdivision,or does it include a subdivision? DYes®No
If Yes,
i. Purpose or type of subdivision?(e.g.,residential,industrial,commercial;if mixed,specify types)
ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? ['Yes No
iii. Number of lots proposed?
iv. Minimum and maximum proposed lot sizes? Minimum Maximum
e.Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? ®Yes❑No
i. If No,anticipated period of construction: months
ii. If Yes:
'• Total number of phases anticipated +/-3
• Anticipated commencement date of phase 1 (including demolition) 12 month 15 year
• Anticipated completion date of final phase 12 month 17year
• Generally describe connections or relationships among phases,including any contingencies where progress of one phase may
determine timing or duration of future phases: Applicant has previously proposed keeping the southernmost area flexible for office
development. Work will begin with the commercial space at the corner and the residential spaces to the rear as per prior approvals
Page 3 of 13
f.Does the project include new residential uses? ®Yes❑No
If Yes,show numbers of units proposed.
One Family Two Family Three Family Multiple Family(four or more)
Initial Phase 144
At completion
of all phases
g.Does the proposed action include new non-residential construction(including expansions)? ®Yes❑No
If Yes,
i.Total number of structures 4
ii. Dimensions(in feet)of largest proposed structure: 45 height; 81 width; and 150 length
iii. Approximate extent of building space to be heated or cooled: 56180 square feet
h.Does the proposed action include construction or other activities that will result in the impoundment of any ®Yes❑No
liquids,such as creation of a water supply,reservoir,pond,lake,waste lagoon or other storage?
If Yes,
i. Purpose of the impoundment:stormwater per regulations
ii. If a water impoundment,the principal source of the water: ❑Ground water®Surface water streams['Other specify:
iii. If other than water,identify the type of impounded/contained liquids and their source.
stormwater
iv. Approximate size of the proposed impoundment. Volume: million gallons;surface area: >1 acres
v. Dimensions of the proposed dam or impounding structure: height; length
vi. Construction method/materials for the proposed dam or impounding structure(e.g.,earth fill,rock,wood,concrete):
Ground excavation per plans submitted
D.2. Project Operations
a.Does the proposed action include any excavation,mining,or dredging,during construction,operations,or both? ❑Yes®No
(Not including general site preparation,grading or installation of utilities or foundations where all excavated
materials will remain onsite)
If Yes:
i.What is the purpose of the excavation or dredging?
ii. How much material(including rock,earth,sediments,etc.)is proposed to be removed from the site?
• Volume(specify tons or cubic yards):
• Over what duration of time?
iii. Describe nature and characteristics of materials to be excavated or dredged,and plans to use,manage or dispose of them.
iv. Will there be onsite dewatering or processing of excavated materials? ❑Yes®No
If yes,describe.
v. What is the total area to be dredged or excavated? acres
vi. What is the maximum area to be worked at any one time? acres
vii. What would be the maximum depth of excavation or dredging? feet
viii. Will the excavation require blasting? ❑Yes®No
ix. Summarize site reclamation goals and plan:
b.Would the proposed action cause or result in alteration of,increase or decrease in size of,or encroachment ❑Yes®No
into any existing wetland,waterbody,shoreline,beach or adjacent area?
If Yes:
i. Identify'the wetland or waterbody which would be affected(by name,water index number,wetland map number or geographic
description):
Page 4 of 13
ii. Describe how the proposed action would affect that waterbody or wetland,e.g.excavation,fill,placement of structures,or
alteration of channels,banks and shorelines. Indicate extent of activities,alterations and additions in square feet or acres:
iii. Will proposed action cause or result in disturbance to bottom sediments? ❑Yes®No
If Yes,describe:
iv. Will proposed action cause or result in the destruction or removal of aquatic vegetation? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:.
• acres of aquatic vegetation proposed to be removed:
.• expected acreage of aquatic vegetation remaining after project completion:
• purpose of proposed removal(e.g.beach clearing,invasive species control,boat access):
• proposed method of plant removal:
• if chemical/herbicide treatment will be used,specify product(s):
v. Describe any proposed reclamation/mitigation following disturbance:
c.Will the proposed action use,or create a new demand for water? ®Yes❑No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated water usage/demand per day: 44150 gallons/day
ii. Will the proposed action obtain water from an existing public water supply? ®Yes❑No
If Yes:
• Name of district or service area: Bay Road
• Does the existing public water supply have capacity to serve the proposal? ®Yes❑No
• Is the project site in the existing district? ®Yes❑No
• Is expansion of the district needed? ❑Yes®No
• Do existing lines serve the project site? ®Yes❑No
iii. Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to supply the project? DYes 1No
If Yes:
• Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project: _
• Source(s)of supply for the district:
iv. Is a new water supply district or service area proposed to be formed to serve the project site? El Yes®No
If,Yes:
• Applicant/sponsor for new district:
• Date application submitted or anticipated:
• Proposed source(s)of supply for new district:
v. If a public water supply will not be used,describe plans to provide water supply for the project:
vi.If water supply will be from wells(public or private),maximum pumping capacity: gallons/minute.
d.Will the proposed action generate liquid wastes? ®Yes❑No
If Yes:
i. Total anticipated liquid waste generation per day: 44150 gallons/day
ii.Nature of liquid wastes to be generated(e.g.,sanitary wastewater,industrial;if combination,describe all components and
approximate volumes or proportions of each):
iii. Will the proposed action use any existing public wastewater treatment facilities? ®Yes❑No
If Yes:
• Name of wastewater treatment plant to be used: Glens Falls
• Name of district: Bay Road
• Does the existing wastewater treatment plant have capacity to serve the project? ®Yes❑No
• Is the project site in the existing district? La Yes❑No
• Is expansion of the district needed? ['Yes 121No
Page 5 of 13
• Do existing sewer lines serve the project site? ®Yes❑No
• Will line extension within an existing district be necessary to serve the project? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:
• Describe extensions or capacity expansions proposed to serve this project:
iv. Will a new wastewater(sewage)treatment district be formed to serve the project site? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:
• Applicant/sponsor for new district:
• Date application submitted or anticipated:
• What is the receiving water for the wastewater discharge?
v. If public facilities will not be used,describe plans to provide wastewater treatment for the project,including specifying proposed
receiving water(name and classification if surface discharge,or describe subsurface disposal plans):
vi. Describe any plans or designs to capture,recycle or reuse liquid waste:
e.Will the proposed action disturb more than one acre and create stormwater runoff,either from new point ®Yes❑No
sources(i.e.ditches,pipes,swales,curbs,gutters or other concentrated flows of stormwater)or non-point
source(i.e.sheet flow)during construction or post construction?
If Yes:
i. How much impervious surface will the project create in relation to total size of project parcel?
Square feet or 9.9 acres(impervious surface)
Square feet or 34.05 acres(parcel size)
ii. Describe types of new point sources.Parking lots,buildings roofs
iii. Where will the stormwater runoff be directed(i.e.on-site stormwater management facility/structures,adjacent properties,
groundwater,on-site surface water or off-site surface waters)?
Stormwater management facilities and structures per plans and specifications already provided and approved.
• If to surface waters,identify receiving water bodies or wetlands:
None
• Will stormwater runoff flow to adjacent properties? ❑Yes®No
iv. Does proposed plan minimize impervious surfaces,use pervious materials or collect and re-use stormwater? ®Yes❑No
f. Does the proposed action include,or will it use on-site,one or more sources of air emissions,including fuel DYes No
combustion,waste incineration,or other processes or operations?
If Yes,identify:
i.Mobile sources during project operations(e.g.,heavy equipment,fleet or delivery vehicles)
ii. Stationary sources during construction(e.g.,power generation,structural heating,batch plant,crushers)
iii. Stationary sources during operations(e.g.,process emissions,large boilers,electric generation)
g.Will any air emission sources named in D.2.f(above),require a NY State Air Registration,Air Facility Permit, ❑Yes®No
or Federal Clean Air Act Title IV or Title V Permit?
If Yes:
i. Is the project site located in an Air quality non-attainment area? (Area routinely or periodically fails to meet ❑Yes®No
ambient air quality standards for all or some parts of the year)
ii. In addition to emissions as calculated in the application,the project will generate:
• Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide(CO2)
• Tons/year(short tons)of Nitrous Oxide(N2O)
• Tons/year(short tons)of Perfluorocarbons(PFCs)
• Tons/year(short tons)of Sulfur Hexafluoride(SF6)
• Tons/year(short tons)of Carbon Dioxide equivalent of Hydroflourocarbons(HFCs)
• Tons/year(short tons)of Hazardous Air Pollutants(HAPs)
Page 6 of 13
h.Will the proposed action generate or emit methane(including,but not limited to,sewage treatment plants, ❑Yes®No
landfills,composting facilities)?
If Yes:
i. Estimate methane generation in tons/year(metric):
ii.Describe any methane capture,control or elimination measures included in project design(e.g.,combustion to generate heat or
electricity,flaring):
i.Will the proposed action result in the release of air pollutants from open-air operations or processes,such as ❑Yes®No
quarry or landfill operations?
If Yes:Describe operations and nature of emissions(e.g.,diesel exhaust,rock particulates/dust):
j.Will the proposed action result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels or generate substantial ❑Yes®No
new demand for transportation facilities or services?
If Yes:
i. When is the peak traffic expected(Check all that apply): 0 Morning 0 Evening OWeekend
❑Randomly between hours of to
ii. For commercial activities only,projected number of semi-trailer truck trips/day:
iii. Parking spaces: Existing Proposed Net increase/decrease
iv. Does the proposed action include any shared use parking? ❑Yes®No
v. If the proposed action includes any modification of existing roads,creation of new roads or change in existing access,describe:
vi. Are public/private transportation service(s)or facilities available within%z mile of the proposed site? ®Yes❑No
vii Will the proposed action include access to public transportation or accommodations for use of hybrid,electric ❑Yes®No
or other alternative fueled vehicles?
viii.Will the proposed action include plans for pedestrian or bicycle accommodations for connections to existing ®Yes❑No
pedestrian or bicycle routes?
k.Will the proposed action(for commercial or industrial projects only)generate new or additional demand ❑Yes®No
for energy?
If Yes:
i. Estimate annual electricity demand during operation of the proposed action:
ii. Anticipated sources/suppliers of electricity for the project(e.g.,on-site combustion,on-site renewable,via grid/local utility,or
other):
iii. Will the proposed action require a new,or an upgrade to,an existing substation? ❑Yes®No
1.Hours of operation. Answer all items which apply.
i. During Construction: ii. During Operations:
• Monday-Friday: • Monday-Friday:
.• Saturday: • Saturday:
• Sunday: • Sunday:
• Holidays: • Holidays:
Page 7 of 13
m. Will the proposed action produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, ❑Yes No
Operation,or both?
If yes:
i. Provide details including sources,time of day and duration:
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? ❑Yes mNo
Describe:
n.. Will the proposed action have outdoor lighting? 1 Yes ONo
If yes:
i. Describe source(s),location(s),height of fixture(s),direction/aim,and proximity to nearest occupied structures:
See lighting plans already submitted and approved in prior site plan. All fixtures are down cast in accordance with regulations.
ii. Will proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier or screen? ❑Yes No
Describe:
o. Does the proposed action have the potential to produce odors for more than one hour per day? ❑Yes No
If Yes,describe possible sources,potential frequency and duration of odor emissions,and proximity to nearest
occupied structures:
p.Will the proposed action include any bulk storage of petroleum(combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons) ❑Yes®No
or chemical products 185 gallons in above ground storage or any amount in underground storage?
If Yes:
i. Product(s)to be stored
ii. Volume(s) per unit time (e.g.,month,year)
iii. Generally describe proposed storage facilities:
q.Will the proposed action(commercial,industrial and recreational projects only)use pesticides(i.e.,herbicides, ❑Yes ONo
insecticides)during construction or operation?
If Yes:
i. Describe proposed treatment(s):
ii. Will the proposed action use Integrated Pest Management Practices? 0 Yes ❑No
r.Will the proposed action(commercial or industrial projects only)involve or require the management or disposal ❑ Yes No
of solid waste(excluding hazardous materials)?
If Yes:
i. Describe any solid waste(s)to be generated during construction or operation of the facility:
• Construction: tons per (unit of time)
• Operation: tons per (unit of time)
ii. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of materials to avoid disposal as solid waste:
• Construction:
• Operation:
iii. Proposed disposal methods/facilities for solid waste generated on-site:
• Construction:
• Operation:
Page 8 of 13
s.Does the proposed action include construction or modification of a solid waste management facility? ❑Yes® No
If Yes:
i. Type of management or handling of waste proposed for the site(e.g.,recycling or transfer station,composting,landfill,or
other disposal activities):
ii. Anticipated rate of disposal/processing:
•• Tons/month,if transfer or other non-combustion/thermal treatment,or
• Tons/hour,if combustion or thermal treatment
iii. If landfill,anticipated site life: years
t.Will proposed action at the site involve the commercial generation,treatment,storage,or disposal of hazardous ❑Yes®No
waste?
If Yes:
i.Name(s)of all hazardous wastes or constituents to be generated,handled or managed at facility:
ii. Generally describe processes or activities involving hazardous wastes or constituents:
iii. Specify amount to be handled or generated tons/month
iv. Describe any proposals for on-site minimization,recycling or reuse of hazardous constituents:
v. Will any hazardous wastes be disposed at an existing offsite hazardous waste facility? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:provide name and location of facility:
If No:describe proposed management of any hazardous wastes which will not be sent to a hazardous waste facility:
E.Site and Setting of Proposed Action
E.1.Land uses on and surrounding the project site
a.Existing land uses.
i. Check all uses that occur on,adjoining and near the project site.
❑ Urban ❑ Industrial ® Commercial ® Residential(suburban) ❑ Rural(non-farm)
❑ Forest ❑ Agriculture 0 Aquatic ® Others eci( p fy):Office/educational
ii. If mix of uses,generally describe:
Area consists of town municipal buildings,bank,professional offices,college,religious,residential
b.Land uses and covertypes on the project site.
Land use or Current Acreage After Change
Covertype Acreage Project Completion (Acres+/-)
• Roads,buildings,and other paved or impervious
surfaces 0 9.85 9.85
• Forested 15.33 13.49 1.84
• Meadows,grasslands or brushlands(non-
agricultural,including abandoned agricultural) 8'17 0 8.17
• Agricultural 0 0 0
(includes active orchards,field,greenhouse etc.)
• Surface water features
(lakes,ponds,streams,rivers,etc.) 0 0 0
• Wetlands(freshwater or tidal) 10.55 10.55 0
• Non-vegetated(bare rock,earth or fill) 0 0 0
• Other
Describe:0 0 0 0
Page 9 of 13
c.Is the project site presently used by members of the community for public recreation? ❑Yes✓❑No
i. If Yes:explain:
d.Are there any facilities serving children,the elderly,people with disabilities(e.g.,schools,hospitals,licensed ®Yes❑No
day care centers,or group homes)within 1500 feet of the project site?
If Yes,
i. Identify Facilities:
Senior housing on adjacent parcel
e.Does the project site contain an existing dam? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:
i. Dimensions of the dam and impoundment:
• Dam height: feet
• Dam length: feet
• Surface area: acres
• Volume impounded: gallons OR acre-feet
ii. Dam's existing hazard classification:
iii. Provide date and summarize results of last inspection:
f.Has the project site ever been used as a municipal,commercial or industrial solid waste management facility, ❑Yes®No
or does the project site adjoin property which is now,or was at one time,used as a solid waste management facility?
If Yes:
i. Has the facility been formally closed? ❑Yes❑ No
• If yes,cite sources/documentation:
ii. Describe the location of the project site relative to the boundaries of the solid waste management facility:
iii. Describe any development constraints due to the prior solid waste activities:
g.Have hazardous wastes been generated,treated and/or disposed of at the site,or does the project site adjoin ❑Yes®No
property which is now or was at one time used to commercially treat,store and/or dispose of hazardous waste?
If Yes:
i.Describe waste(s)handled and waste management activities,including approximate time when activities occurred:
h. Potential contamination history. Has there been a reported spill at the proposed project site,or have any ❑Yes®No
remedial actions been conducted at or adjacent to the proposed site?
If Yes:
i. Is any portion of the site listed on the NYSDEC Spills Incidents database or Environmental Site ❑Yes❑No
Remediation database? Check all that apply:
❑ Yes—Spills Incidents database Provide DEC ID number(s):
❑ Yes—Environmental Site Remediation database Provide DEC ID number(s):
❑ Neither database
ii. If site has been subject of RCRA corrective activities,describe control measures:
iii. Is the project within 2000 feet of any site in the NYSDEC Environmental Site Remediation database? ❑Yes❑No
If yes,provide DEC ID number(s):
iv. If yes to(i),(ii)or(iii)above,describe current status of site(s):
Page 10 of 13
•
v. Is the project site subject to an institutional control limiting property uses? ❑Yes❑No
• If yes,DEC site ID number:
• Describe the type of institutional control(e.g.,deed restriction or easement):
• Describe any use limitations:
• Describe any engineering controls:
• Will the project affect the institutional or engineering controls in place? YesDNo
• Explain:
E.2. Natural Resources On or Near Project Site
a.What is the average depth to bedrock on the project site? <12 feet
b.Are there bedrock outcroppings on the project site? ❑Yes®No
If Yes,what proportion of the site is comprised of bedrock outcroppings?
c.Predominant soil type(s)present on project site: oakville 100
d.What is the average depth to the water table on the project site? Average: feet
e.Drainage status of project site soils:® Well Drained: 70%of site
❑ Moderately Well Drained: %of site
® Poorly Drained 30%of site
f.Approximate proportion of proposed action site with slopes: ® 0-10%: 78 %of site
• 10-15%: 10 %of site
® 15%or greater: 12 %of site
g.Are there any unique geologic features on the project site? ❑Yes®No
If Yes,describe:
h.Surface water features.
i.Does any portion of the project site contain wetlands or other waterbodies(including streams,rivers, ®Yes❑No
ponds or lakes)?
ii. Do any wetlands or other waterbodies adjoin the project site? ®Yes❑No
If Yes to either i or ii,continue. If No,skip to E.2.i.
iii. .Are any of the wetlands or waterbodies within or adjoining the project site regulated by any federal, ®Yes❑No
state or local agency?
iv. For each identified regulated wetland and waterbody on the project site,provide the following information:
• Streams: Name Classification
• Lakes or Ponds: Name Classification
• Wetlands: Name No name-on site Approximate Size 10.55
• Wetland No.(if regulated by DEC)
v. Are any of the above water bodies listed in the most recent compilation of NYS water quality-impaired ['Yes 0No
waterbodies?
If yes,name of impaired water body/bodies and basis for listing as impaired:
i.Is the project site in a designated Floodway? ❑Yes®No
j.Is the project site in the 100 year Floodplain? ❑Yes®No
k.Is the project site in the 500 year Floodplain? ❑Yes®No
1.Is the project site located over,or immediately adjoining,a primary,principal or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:
i.Name of aquifer:
Page 11 of 13
R
m. Identify the predominant wildlife species that occupy or use the project site:
n.Does the project site contain a designated significant natural community? El Yes®No
If Yes:
i. Describe the habitat/community(composition,function,and basis for designation):
ii. Source(s)of description or evaluation:
iii. Extent of community/habitat:
• Currently: acres
• Following completion of project as proposed: acres
• Gain or loss(indicate+or-): acres
o.Does project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by the federal government or NYS as ❑Yes[Z]No
endangered or threatened,or does it contain any areas identified as habitat for an endangered or threatened species?
p. Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of ❑Yes®No
special concern?
q.Is the project site or adjoining area currently used for hunting,trapping,fishing or shell fishing? ❑Yes®No
If yes,give a brief description of how the proposed action may affect that use:
E.3. Designated Public Resources On or Near Project Site
a.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in a designated agricultural district certified pursuant to ❑Yes®No
Agriculture and Markets Law,Article 25-AA,Section 303 and 304?
If Yes, provide county plus district name/number:
b.Are agricultural lands consisting of highly productive soils present? ❑Yes lNo
i. If Yes:acreage(s)on project site?
ii. Source(s)of soil rating(s):
c. Does the project site contain all or part of,or is it substantially contiguous to,a registered National ❑Yes®No
Natural Landmark?
If Yes:
i. Nature of the natural landmark: ❑Biological Community ❑ Geological Feature
ii. Provide brief description of landmark,including values behind designation and approximate size/extent:
d.Is the project site located in or does it adjoin a state listed Critical Environmental Area? ❑Yes®No
If Yes:
i. CEA name:
ii. Basis for designation:
iii. Designating agency and date:
Page 12 of 13
e.Does the project site contain,or is it substantially contiguous to,a building,archaeological site,or district ❑Yes®No
which is listed on,or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for inclusion on,the
State or National Register of Historic Places?
If Yes:
i. Nature of historic/archaeological resource: ❑Archaeological Site ❑Historic Building or District
ii. Name:
iii. Brief description of attributes on which listing is based:
f.Is the project site,or any portion of it,located in or adjacent to an area designated as sensitive for ❑Yes®No
archaeological sites on the NY State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO)archaeological site inventory?
g.Have additional archaeological or historic site(s)or resources been identified on the project site? Yes ONO
If Yes:
i.Describe possible resource(s):
ii. Basis for identification:
h.Is the project site within fives miles of any officially designated and publicly accessible federal,state,or local ❑Yes®No
scenic or aesthetic resource?
If Yes:
i. Identify resource:
ii.Nature of,or basis for,designation(e.g.,established highway overlook,state or local park,state historic trail or scenic byway,
etc.): '
iii. Distance between project and resource: miles.
i. Is the project site located within a designated river corridor under the Wild,Scenic and Recreational Rivers 0 Yes®No
Program 6 NYCRR 666?
If Yes:
i. Identify the name of the river and its designation:
ii. Is the activity consistent with development restrictions contained in 6NYCRR Part 666? ❑Yes®No
F.Additional Information
Attach any additional information which may be needed to clarify your project.
If you have identified any adverse impacts which could be associated with your proposal,please describe those impacts plus any
measures which you propose to avoid or minimize them.
G. Verification
I certify that the information provided is true to the best of my knowledge.
Applicant/Sponsor Name UJ eg,4AS\pvvi ?o. kaa UP.. Date 1 Z.1{i) 1
Signature' Title lrtJG..
•
PRINT FORM Page 13 of 13
the LA group 40 Long Alley P 518/587-8100
Landscape Architecture Saratoga Springs F 518/587-0180
and Engineering,PC. New York 12866 www.thelagroup.com
Engineering Report
Water and Sanitary Sewer
For
FOWLER SQUARE
BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK
Prepared For
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
c/o D.A. Collins Companies
269 Ballard Road
Wilton, NY 12831
Prepared By
The LA Group, P.C.
40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
April 18, 2013
. f
Engineering Report Fowler Square
Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
201277
I. Introduction
This Project involves the construction and operation of +/-14,000 square feet (s.f.) of
professional office, 42,180 s.f. of mixed use retail business and 142 residential apartments on
land at the intersection of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road located in the Town of Queensbury,
Warren County.
II. Project Description
This project will be constructed on an unimproved portion of the property. The proposed
development includes construction of nine (9) multi-family residential buildings and two (2)
mixed use buildings at the southwest corner of the Blind Rock Road and Bay Road intersection.
The approved uses within the mixed use buildings include convenience store, coffee shop, food
service, offices, bank, retail shops, and personal services. Proposed mix use buildings have not
been leased so the future uses are unknown at this time.
III. Existing Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities
Municipal water service is currently provided by the Town of Queensbury Water Department.
Along the north side of Blind Rock Road there is a 12-inch ductile iron pipe main and along the
east side of Bay Road there is a 12-inch cast-iron pipe main.
Municipal sewer service is located along the west side of Bay Road, with the last manhole in the
gravity line at the intersection of Blind Rock Road. The sewer main is a recently installed 8-inch
PVC pipe.
IV. Projected Water and Wastewater Flows
Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations
Average Daily Flow (ADF) =
Office/Commercial: (52,000 square feet)x (0.10 gpd/sf)1 = 5,200 gpd
Restaurant: (200 seats) x(35 gpd/seat)1 = 7,000 gpd
2 bdrm Apartments: (142 apartments) x (225 gpd/apartment)= 31,950 gpd
Total= 44,150 gpd
Peaking factor for sanitary sewer flow is 4 times the average3.
Peak Hourly Flow (PHF) = (44,150 gpd/720 minutes per day)x(4 peaking
factor)2 =245.3 gpm.
1
Engineering Report Fowler Square
Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
201277
Domestic Water Demand Calculations
Average Daily Flow (ADF) =44,150 gallons per day(gpd)based on Sanitary
Sewer flows.
44,150 gpd/720 minutes per day= 61 gallons per minute(gpm) average.
Peaking factor for instantaneous water use is estimated to be 10 times the average
based upon past experience. Maximum Instantaneous Water Demand is estimated
at 613 gpm.
V. Proposed Water and Wastewater Utilities
A. Proposed Domestic Water Utilities
To service the project, the existing waterlines located along Bay Road and Blind Rock
Road are proposed to be tapped for an 8-inch ductile iron water service. The proposed 8-
inch service will be installed through the site creating a looped system to provide water
service from both Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. The static pressure available at the
proposed connection into Bay Road is approximately 85 psi based on hydrant flow tests
provided by the Town. When the hydrants were flowing at approximately 1,100 gpm the
residual pressure dropped to approximately 50 psi indicating adequate supply.
The new buildings will have fire sprinklers and the domestic services will be metered.
Four fire hydrants are proposed throughout the property, with two of the hydrants placed
at dead ends in the line to provide flushing of the water line, if necessary. Service
connections, testing and disinfection will be specified in accordance with NYSDOH and
Queensbury Water Department standards.
B. Proposed Wastewater Utilities
Sewer service for the project will be provided from the Queensbury Sewer District along
Bay Road. The southern building (Building #1) along Bay Road is proposed to wye
directly into the municipal main along Bay Road, approximately 350' south of the
proposed driveway entrance. The remaining buildings will be collected in the proposed
internal sewer network and discharge into a proposed manhole along Bay Road. All
proposed sewer laterals will be gravity fed. As previously mentioned, the developers are
uncertain of their future tenants but any tenants providing food service will be required to
have an internal grease trap as part of the establishment.
1. From Table 3,NYSDEC 1988 Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works.
2. From Figure 1,GLUMRB Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.
Attachments
Sanitary Sewer Calculations (Attachment A)
2
ATTACHMENT A
Sanitary Sewer Calculations
FOWLER SQUARE
SANITARY SEWER
BASIS OF DESIGN
Sewer Connection
ESTIMATE MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW:
APARTMENTS (2BR) :
NO. OF APARTMENTS 142 EA (PROJECTED)
DESIGN FLOW, Qa = 225 GPD/EA (ESTIMATED)
31, 950 GPD
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL:
NO. SQ FT 32180 SF
DESIGN FLOW, Qc = 0.1 GPD/SF (ESTIMATED)
3218 GPD
MAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 35,168 GPD (Qa + Qb + Qc)
AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 48.84 GPM (BASED ON 12 HOUR DAY)
PEAK FLOW, Qp = 195.4 GPD (PEAKING FACTOR OF 4)
Check capacity of 8 -inch sewer (flowing 1/2 full) :
Use Manning's Equation where:
Cross-sectional area, A = 0.17 SF
Wetted perimeter, P = 1.05 FT
Channel slope, S = 0.004 FT/FT
Roughness coefficient, n = 0.013 (10 States minimum)
Flow, Q = 0.38 CFS or 171.5 GPM
Velocity, V = 2.19 FPS
1 4/22/2013
FOWLER SQUARE
SANITARY SEWER
BASIS OF DESIGN
Building #1 Sewer Connection
ESTIMATE MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW:
RESTAURANT:
NO. SEATS 200 SEAT
DESIGN FLOW, Qb = 35 GPD/SEAT (ESTIMATED)
7000 GPD
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL:
NO. SQ FT 19820 SF
DESIGN FLOW = 0.1 GPD/SF (ESTIMATED)
1982 GPD
MAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 8,982 GPD
AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 12.48 GPM (BASED ON 12 HOUR DAY)
PEAK FLOW, Qp = 49.9 GPD (PEAKING FACTOR OF 4)
Check capacity of 6 -inch sewer (flowing 1/2 full) :
Use Manning's Equation where:
Cross-sectional area, A = 0.10 SF
Wetted perimeter, P = 0.79 FT
Channel slope, S = 0.010 FT/FT
Roughness coefficient, n = 0.013 (10 States minimum)
Flow, Q = 0.28 CFS or 125.9 GPM
Velocity, V = 2.86 FPS
1 4/22/2013