The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-11-05 SP - - QUEENSBURY PlANlIING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 5TH. 1990 INDEX Subdivision No. 14-1990 Inspiration Park 1. SKETCH PLAN Adams Rich Associates Petition for a Change of Zone PI0-90 The Pyramid Company of Glens Falls 1. Aviation Mall Modifications to Planning Board Policies and Procedures 26. 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. ~.J'?:;-))i'~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING NOVEMBER 5TH. 1990 6:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, ACTING CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY CONRAD KUPILLAS NICHOLAS CAIMANO JAMES MARTI N EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT JAMES HAGAN DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS SENIOR PLANIIER-LEE A. YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-We're going to make a slight change in the order of the agenda, here, and take care of one minor piece of Old Business. In reference to Subdivision No. 14-1990 Sketch Plan Inspiration Park. Adams Rich Association. south side of Corinth Road, approximately 1/10th of a mile northeast of West Mountain Road. At the October 25th meeting, it was decided to take a re-vote at the November 5th meeting, Special Meeting, tonight, since there were only three votes and a majority vote of the Board is needed. We have looked at all the issues, and, unless there's any discussion, I think all we need to do is reintroduce the motion. MOTION 10 APPROVE SKETCH PLAII NO. 14-1990 I liSP I RATION PARK, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a 42 lot subdivision with the following stipulations: A waiver has been requested and granted from Subdivision Regulation 8.E.9, regarding minimum center line road radius for horizontal curves on marginal access roads. The applicant agrees to comply with all suggestions made by the Consulting Engineer and Staff. This subdivision is subject to the Queensbury Phasing Regulations. Duly adopted this 5th day of November, 1990. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Martin, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF mKE PID-9O THE PYRAMID COMPAIIY OF GLENS FALLS AVIATION MALL. AVIATIOII ROAD AT INTERSTATE 87. EXIT 19 RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOlIN BOARD CONCERNING CREATIOII OF A NEIl ZOIlE (ESC-2S. ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER 25 ACRES) LOU GAGLIANO, AVIATION MALL, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-This is a somewhat unusual procedure, here, and I want to just be sure that we are all on the same wavelength, in terms of how we're going to do this. Normally. we don't take, necessarily, take comments from the floor, when we consider changes, but I suspect strongly, and if the Board concurs, I'm sure there are people here who would like to make some comments. We also have some comnrents from Staff and I think what I'd like to do, here, is take Staff Comments, first, open the floor to anybody who wishes to address the Board. with regard to this recommendation that we will be involved with, close the floor, and allow the Board to have a discussion and make whatever recommendation results from all of this. Lee, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner (attached) MRS. YORK-(Referring to Staff Notes) "The proposed zone has a permitted use being an Enclosed Shopping Center but then states under Site Plan Review that all uses will be sUbject to Site Plan Review. If this is adopted, the Planning Board may wish to make sure that it is written so as to be consistent with the Town's existing Ordinance." What I meant is. just so it was written in the same form. 1 '--' MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody on the Board have a question for Lee, on these notes? MR. CAIMANO-If you're going to let them talk, I'd rather wait. MR. CARTIER-Okay, I guess we can open the floor for presentations. Just to reiterate a comment I made to you, in the Planning office, that we're going to do this. in terms of a zoning change. and let's see if we can avoid a, sort of getting into a Site Plan Review, here. MR. GAGLIANO-Okay, we won't get into any specifics. My name is Lou Gagliano of Aviation Mall. I'd 1 i ke to compl iment Lee's very thorough review of much of the package that we presented. I think a good point that comes out of this is that it is important to look at all of the aspects of the entire project. I'd like to introduce some of the people we brought here, tonight, hopefully to answer as many of the Board's questions as you have and try and address issues as they arise. Jeff Anthony, principal partner in the LA Group, our Landscape Architect and Planner. John Meyer, principal owner of John Meyer Consulting. our Engineer for Traffic and Site Planning, and, of course, you know Bob Stewart, partner in Bartlett/Pontiff/Stewart, etal. If I may, Mr. Cartier. I'd like to just briefly discuss the proposed expansion, not go into any explicit or implicit Site Plan Review issues, but just to give the Board a feel for what the whole package entails, if I may. As you know. Aviation Mall has been here for 15 years and the market's changed and grown a lot. over the last 15 years. Based on a lot of Customer Intercept Surveys and Phone Surveys and input from the market, customers are really telling us that they want more selection, more opportunities and more options at the Mall. What we're proposing is to add. is to construct a new, 82,000 square foot JC Penney's, immediately west of the existing JC Penney's building, which is right here, and outlined. We would convert the existing Penney's to approximately 10 to 15 new mall stores. use a portion of the rear of the existing Penney's, bump out the back and add a fourth department store. In conjunction with this. Sears has also expressed an interest in an expansion of approximately 15.000 square feet. Now, of course. with this expansion would come the various increased parking and amenities that would go with an expansion of that impact. It's approximately a 20,000 square foot GLA increase in the existing shopping center. Again, I'll stay away from specific site plan issues. The impact of it, obviously, is not only to address the customer needs that have been expressed in the area, but also bring jobs and, of course, the many economic benefits, both to the municipalities and to the people who would be working there. Again, to try and meet your wish, Mr. Cartier, I won't go, implicitly. into the specifics of it. We'll save that for Site Plan Review, when we get to that point. We probably should use Staff Comments, unless you have an objection. and address these, as we move through. MR. CARTIER-If you would like. certainly. MR. GAGLIANO-Okay. Bob, do you want to step up here. BOB STEWART MR. STEWART-For the record, my name is Bob Stewart and I'm representing the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls, tonight. When we first took a look at this, to bring about the 20 percent expansion that Pyramid desired to do, certain things were. obviously, necessary. We had to acquire some additional land, whi ch is part of thi s process. We're acqui ri ng some 1 and to the east, whi ch is to the 1 eft on that diagram. We're hoping to acquire land to the west, that's the land to the east, behind Burger King, that's the land to the west, up by the Howard Johnson Motel and also a strip. through there, from the Town of Queensbury, which is really a paper road that, years ago. was intended to go somewhere, but the Northway cut it off and it's a surplus piece of property. So, we have to do that. We have to relocate a water main. There's various things that we have to do and. specifically, we have to get some changes from the Zoning Ordinance, in order to bring about this expansion, and that is what we're here to discuss with you, tonight. The first thing, I think we should all keep in mind that this is an existing mall. It was all approved by Planning Boards and Zoning Boards, back in 1975, in that area, and so we're working within certain limited site constraints that we have. Some of the things that we need. it comes. really, into two categories. As we look at the zoning. we discovered that there were some things in the Zoning Ordinance that made a lot of sense in a Plaza Commercial zone. The Town of Queensbury has. really, one zone for both strip malls, as they're normally called, or a 1 a rge regi ona 1 enc 1 osed ma 11, such as thi s is. One zone covers all. Some of the requi rements, whi 1 e perfectly appropriate for a strip plaza mall, don't make a great deal of sense, with an enclosed shopping mall. The first one that comes to mind is the loading and off loading, for the big trucks. Strip malls called for a loading dock for each store. Well, of course, if you pull them behind the strip, you can back up to a door. behind each door, and that is perfectly feasible. A mall like this, however, those rules don't make any sense. First of all, the big stores, such as Penney's and Sears, would need ~ than one loading dock. They couldn't handle the volume that they needed, with just one loading dock. The smaller, internal stores don't really need a loading dock, and. in any event, it is totally, there is no way to give them one. Whether they would want one or not, you've got to move the stuff from loading areas in through the common areas, into those small. internal stores. So, the idea, which was fine in a Plaza Commercial, really breaks down and doesn't make much sense, here. So, we wanted some changes along those lines. We, for example, on that particular one, we would say, no loading docks for these small stores, because you just can't give them a loading dock. We were quoting, I believe, three loading docks for each one of the large department stores. So, on the one hand, we're more and the other hand we're taking it away, but it's to adjust to the practicalities of the situation. 2 -- There are other types of changes that we looked at, that we simply need, if this site is to accommodate the expansion and so let's go through them, and we'll use Mrs. York's. if you choose. One way to approach this, her first coment is the creation of a new zone. as such. The very idea of creating a new zone, rather than trying to adapt to the existing zone. We thought about doing that, going in and trying to get some changes in the Plaza Commercial zone that would accommodate our unique needs but the problem with that is you sort of open Pandora's Box. If you make a change in the Plaza Comercial zone, that sweeps through the whole Town and this Board or the Town Board might feel that that particular change suits our site, suits our need, suits our requirement. but wouldn't. necessarily, want to give it, throughout the entire Town, because there may be sites where it would be totally impractical or unfortunate to make that change. So, we thought if we picked this spot, limited all the proposed changes to this spot, as we went through each Board, we could agonize over, is it good, is it bad, but we're limiting it to this spot, this zone. We're not opening God knows what. down the road, somewhere else, that we haven't thought about. So that, I think, was our primary thought behind creating a new zone, really, tailor made for this particular problem and this particular expansion and stay away from your existing zones and not foul them up. MR. CARTIER-You don't feel that that scenario you have just spelled out is not spot zoning? MR. STEWART-No. That phrase comes up. Let's go at it and straighten that away, right off the bat. Spot zoning has been defined by the Court of Appeals, and I can almost memorize it. It is, in essence, the process of creating a new use to a piece of property, which is significantly or dramatically different than the existing or the surrounding area. It is applied to a small piece of land and it is done to the benefit of the property owner of that piece of land, and to the detriment of the surrounding neighbors who are watching this change take place in front of their eyes. First of all, if you look, now you haven't gone through this all yet, and I will in a moment, you will see that there is no use change, really, being asked, here. Let's go back to the concept of the difference between a use and an area type request. You're all familiar, I think, generally. with Use Variances and Area Variances. Use Variances, you're trying to put a factory in a Residential Zone, for example. Area Variances are, you want to change from the side line or the building height or the parking ratios, or the densities or whatever. These are the area type of variances. The definition of Spot Zoning is, it's a change in use. a dramatic change in use. Now, here. this particular piece of property, the property surrounding this, on both sides, and the property, across the road, over on this side, is all commercial. It's all Plaza Commercial, except this little strip, which is Highway Commercial, that we'd want a little piece of. Everything else, all the way down to Glen Street, is all Plaza Commercial. The zoned allowed. now, you can build strip malls .Q!.. enclosed malls, all the way down there, and. in fact, it is developed, now. as a mall. So, there's no change in use, and that's the very concept of the Spot Zone. MR. CARTIER-I don't mean to refute you, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me, that's an awfully narrow definition of Spot Zoning. MR. STEWART-The highest court in the State of New York says that's what it is, that's the whole concept of it. Normally, of course, it's applied to a small piece of property,,- too. We're 45 acres. I've never heard of any Spot Zoning being attributed to a parcel of land as large as 45 acres, but the important thing is, there's no change of use. We're not asking permission to use this land any other way than it's been used for the last 17 or 18 years. and that is Commercial Shopping Centers. MR. CARTIER-But you used the phrase, a few minutes ago, "unique needs", and this is a very muddy area for me, so I'm asking questions. I don't have answers. You mentioned unique needs. MR. STEWART-Well, one of the things was the enclosed mall, for example, the loading docks, that's a unique need to an enclosed mall, which is not normally unique to a strip mall. MR. CARTIER-Well. I guess I raised the question because, to me. "unique needs", building a zone to meet "unique needs" is also a degree of Spot Zoning. MR. STEWART-No. The courts have held that it isn't, and that, first of all, this Master Plan. The expansion of these shopping malls is right in your Master Plan. and promote. You just re-zoned, in West Glens Falls, specifically for the Shop Courts have said this is fine. use is right in your It's what you favor N' Save development. MR. CARTIER-Who did? We didn't. MRS. PULVER-We didn't. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we didn't. MR. STEWART-Glens Falls did, alright, I'm sorry. The courts have pointed out that, with the development in this area, shopping centers. specifically, are a real need and communities must adjust their Ordi nances to provi de for them. Thi s is not consi dered bad stuff. Thi s is consi de red thoughtful planning, if we do it right. and we're here. tonight, and you're here, tonight, I'm sure, to see that we do do it right. So, the concept of doing it is good. It's not Spot Zoning. It's not prohibited, 3 but we want to do it well and you want us to do it well. Again, we're doing what has always been there. Mrs. Yorkls next comment is that we don't make much of a difference in the way we refer to maximum density, under the old zone, Plaza Commercial, and under our proposed new zone, and that is. essentially, true. We tried to keep the languages consistent, between the old and new, as we could. unless we saw that there was an area, here. where we had a problem that we had to get resolved in this new zoning, and this was not one of them. She, next, points out, a site plan review is involved. I will be honest with you. I thought about drafting it up and omitting the requirement to come here at all. but I knew you wouldn't let me get away with that, so I put in, yes, we do have to come. Permeability then, let's get down, near the bottom of Page Two is the first one of substance. The Zoning Ordinances, before, usually varied from zone to zone, in the amount of permeability. Permeability. by definition. is simply, don't cover the land with a structure or a building or black topping of somewhere. Allow the water to get down into the soil. It does not mean landscaping. There's no requirement of landscaping in this zone, or any percentage of landscaping. It's keeping the ground permeable, that's the very definition in your Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-But you can landscape. MR. STEWART-Yes, you can. MR. CAIMANO-And they do. MR. CARTIER-You can landscape permeable land. MR. STEWART-Yes, and we'll be talking about that, but I just want to make that distinction, because I think it becomes important. When the Ordinance was amended, let me step back and say this. When this shopping center was created, back around 1975, it was created with a percentage of permeability just under 20 percent, 19, 19 and a half. MR. GAGLIANO-It was approved at just over 17 and constructed at just over 20. MR. STEWART-Okay, so we are at about 20 range, but we were approved at, lets say, 17. Now, the new Ordinance, that wouldn't apply to the mall that exists, but would apply to the expansion, at least that seems to me, now says 30. For reasons I don't entirely understand, the entire Ordinance is 30. There is no distinction, at all. Now, that's what Lee says. Actually, you do have a Neighborhood Commercial that's 25 percent, if I recall, isn't there? MR. CARTIER-No, the lowest is 30. Residential areas are 50 and it varies between 30 and 50. MR. STEWART-Are you sure there are not Residential areas, there, of 30? MR. CARTIER-There may be some MR-5's or something like that. MR. STEWART-And I think one is as small as 25, maybe, in Neighborhood Commercial. MR. CARTIER-I don't think 30 percent, I think 30 percent.... MR. MARTIN-That's a question that I would like to raise, with Lee. Do you know what the driving force was or the reasoning behind the 30 percent level? I mean, was it something done out of concern for aesthetics, or was it done on a scientific, technical analysis of soils, throughout the Town? What was the reasoning for this 30 percent? Why not 20? Why not 40? Why not 35? Why not 25? MRS. YORK-Well. there was a review of all the soils in the Town. Basically, the Advisory Committee for the Master Plan decided that they wanted to keep a standard which seemed fairly reasonable in all the zones. The concern was that we were having a lot of stormwater runoff and the permeable percentage of the lot could help those kind of impacts that were being felt. MR. CARTIER-And I think there was also an aesthetic concern. MRS. YORK-There was. If you read the definition of permeable. it means ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. Said ground surface could be undisturbed, natural terrain or landscaped area with. generally, unpaved surfaces, foliage increases the permeability of the ground surface. There is also a concern to have green space and natural space, and not have the terrain eaten up with blacktop. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm just trying to, because I was on that committee, and I'm just trying to piece together, with stormwater. it was aesthetics, in terms of green area, and it also was captured groundwater. MRS. YORK-And there was a great deal of concern, too, for aqui fer recharge areas. Maki ng sure that enough of the water did enter the aquifer, to substantially recharge it for the wells in the community. MRS. PULVER-But my question is, why the flat 30 percent, everywhere? 4 '--" -- MRS. YORK-Well, it actually isn't a flat 30 percent. There are a couple of zones that there are, actually, greater amounts of permeable areas required. Such as in Land Conservation. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it varies from, like, 65 percent down to 30, I believe. MR. CAIMANO-But the question still arises, where was the number 30 arrived from? Was there something back in the...... MRS. YORK-Basically, when the group went through the different zones in Town, there were calculations done, at that time, as to the average type of lot, the average amount of construction on that lot and black top and it was done in every different type of zone, which the community has 27 different zones, currently, and in each zone, they did go through and did calculations regarding the particular type of zone and the average site in that zone could, potentially, handle. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it wasn't a matter of picking a number out of the air. MR. MARTIN-No, I understand that. I wouldn't think that would be the case at all, but the reason why I ask is because it's one thing to change something like this, if we're going to cause a real threat, in terms of, like, a stormwater runoff is a real threat or something to do with the aquifer, if we effect that. that's a real threat, to change that from 30 to 20, but if it's just a case of an aesthetic concern, to go from 30 to 20, then that's a little bit more soft of an area, and we're not, maybe, creating a real hard disaster or something, that's why I'm asking. MR. CARTIER-I'm not sure how this applies, and I hate to bring this up, because this is site specific, but I think we have to keep in mind, here, that we're talking about an area, not just this particular mall, here, but the entire area is rapidly approaching build out and we need to get a handle on, we want to be sure that.... MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but that's neither here nor there. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Why not? MR. CAIMANO-Not to this. They want to know whether they can make a new zone. I don't think that that's really germane to the subject, but more to the point, I think, is what Mr. Stewart said, and he kind of slipped it by. there. You talked about 20 or 30 percent permeability, as it applies to the expansion, not the whole mall. MR. STEWART-Well, this is a question that's going to come up, somewhere along the line. MR. CAIMANO-It certainly is a question, to me because if I vote to change the zone, we're changing a zone for the whole Town and. therefore, the permeability, you'll be stuck with it for the whole place, that's the way 11001< at it. I may be wrong. MR. STEWART-Okay. You run into a problem in concept, I think, we all do, when you're looking at a project that is already, in this case, 80 percent built, because we want to expand 20. It was built to certain guidelines, rules and everything, there in the ground, and you can't change those. Now. then, the new, you say. alright, can, the new development, conform to whatever rules we have, today? Well. are you saying that, when we're all done, that this whole shopping mall. the old and the new, somehow, has to get up to 30 percent permeability? If so, you've got to start tearing down buildings, now. So, these are the things we have to talk about. Who's right or who's wrong or exactly how it would be construed is difficult. What we are saying !!' that we can bring this expansion in and be better than 20 percent overall permeability and we're asking the permission of the Town Board to do that, specifically, with this change in the zone. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but lets be sure that we understand something, here. There's a difference between percentage and actual permeable land and that's the case, here. If I have 100 acres that is 20 percent permeable and I add, to that. another 100 acres, I've gone to 67 percent permeable, now. okay. The same amount of land is still permeable, okay. I haven't changed the actual amount of permeability, but now, if I turn around and I pave a certain amount of acreage, so that, now. I'm down to 60 percent permeable, I've got a lot of permeable land. percentage wise, but, in actual raw land, there's less permeable land. here. So. I want to be sure that we distinguish between, I understand what you're saying about increasing percent permeable. MR. STEWART-Now we have 20, or a hair above. When we are done, we will have a little bit more than what we have, now. but it will be in the 20 range. We won't have.... MR. CARTIER-I don't think you understood my point. MR. STEWART-We have not acquired anymore land, yet. 5 ----- ~' MR. CARTIER-Not yet. MR. STEWART-No. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. STEWART-Nor will we, unless this project goes through. MR. CARTIER-But I want you to understand, the rationale behind the permeable is to keep land permeable, and, in fact of the matter. here. even though the percentage permeable is going to increase, the actual amount of land that will be permeable, is going to decrease. MR. STEWART-Well, if you're assuming that the land is never developed, you mean. the remaining land? Let's take it one step at a time. MR. GAGLIANO-The map, let me take the numbers right off of there. I think that might answer your question. For the record, Lou Gagliano from Aviation Mall. As Bob was alluding to, the permeability percentages and also the acreages. Currently. the site is 20.12 percent permeable. After the proposed expansion is completed, it will be 21.26 percent, okay. Total acreage that will be permeable, after the expansion completed. is 11.97 acres, okay. Total permeable acreage, right now, is just under 10 acres. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but you're adding land. You're buying land, hopefully, you're going to buy land that is already permeable. MR. GAGLIANO-In some cases that's true, yes. MR. CARTIER-That's where your increase in permeability is coming from. but in terms of actual number of acres, for the whole project, we're going to end up with less permeable land than we have now. You mean you're not going to pave anything? Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. GAGLIANO-No, that's not true. MR. CARTIER-I may not be saying it very well. MR. STEWART-Lou, you're not seeing where we're going, here. You're assuming that the land that we intend to buy, for example, behind Burger King, is never going to be developed and would remain totally permeable. Under your Regulations, it i!. going to be developed, some time. and at 30 percent. MR. MARTIN-Again, I'd 1 i ke to get back to my questi on, because what we're dealing, here, wi th, is a zone change. and not just the permeability of this one specific site. If we do create this zone, at 20 percent permeability, then we are saying that, although there is no other property of that designation in this Town now, the District will now exist and then someone has the, there will be that chance, now, that other parcels in the Town will attain this zone designation. MR. STEWART-Well, may I disagree with you on that point. MR. MARTIN-Why not? MR. STEWART-Okay, because what we propose is this zone, for this site, and this site only. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you're proposing that this District be added into our Ordinance, are you not? MR. STEWART-Only on this site. MR. MARTIN-No, but you're saying that this Zoning District will, then, exist in the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. MR. STEWART-That's right, and someone, today, or yesterday. or next month, could come and ask that this zone be applied somewhere else. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. STEWART-They could also come and say, I have a piece of property that I want zoned BB Zone, or XYZ and say what it is and, as we've done, and ask for it, and if the Boards feel that is a good idea, the Boards can approve it. So, the fact that we asked for this, doesn't make any commitment, by anybody, to any future zone. MR. MARTIN-No, I understand that, but we're opening up the opportunity, we're bringing it that one step closer to having permeability levels of 20 percent, in other areas of the Town, and that's why I, again, I wanted to get back to why this 30 percent. If, you know, there was some hard and fast technical finding or analysis done, that lead us to this level and, if there is, then that's, it's a much bigger issue to change that. 6 --- MR. STEWART-Now, here, for example, is where I could use some guidance, because I want to follow. very carefully, the instructions of this Board and I want to make sure, however. that we put our best foot forward, obviously, to make our pitch, so to speak. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEWART-I know. and I know that Mr. Cartier knows, because he was involved. There was a feeling that an awful lot of the Town of Queensbury that was being zoned, in 1988, was clay, and had very adverse soil conditions. This particular piece of property is sand. Mr. Mars is here. He can go into great detail, as to its ability to absorb water, what is there, now, in the way of retention basins, what is there, now. in the way of storm drainage that is to the site, which most sites don't have. He is here with designs as to how he plans to recharge the water back into the ground, more than what is being done on the site, presently, and, of course, my question is, am I getting too site specific. Am I violating your rule? MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying, and I guess the way to answer that is to say, yes, it's getting too site specific, and that's not the answer you want to hear, but I'm trying to keep this clean and neat. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEWART-So, then, I can tell you that we are asking for a 20 percent ratio, as to why we feel it would be wise and provident. in this particular spot, that awaits another night, I take it. MRS. PULVER-Two questions. and I'm on this with Jim, too. What studies were done to determine, by an engineering firm, say. soil tests. Who did them? What year were they done? MR. MARTIN-Well, I mean, was there an overlay map done? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Di d someone take the Soil Conservati on Map and overl ay thi s and say, you know. these are the sandy soils, so, therefore, this is the percentage rate. These are the clays. These are the high levels of bedrock, so, therefore. there's a more permeable rate. I mean, was that ever done? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Right. It's all outlined in the Master Plan. how it was done. There were 15 maps prepared, all the soil types, depth to bedrock. We had a Landscape Architect. Fred Holman, who did a lot of mapping. The Soil Conservation Service contributed and many other groups. At any rate, all of this was done. and the group that worked with Mr. Holman, this committee that was requested to do this, by the Town Board, worked on this, at length, and did look at average sites in every District and did come up with a number. MR. MARTIN-And that was their recommendation? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-Now, if you would like me to give you some kind of report on this, I will be happy to do that, but I think it might hold up this process a little. MRS. PULVER-My other question is, can they apply for a variance for this expansion, to reduce the permeabi 1 i ty? MR. CARTIER-Sure. Anybody can apply for a variance for anything. MR. STEWART-No. MR. CAIMANO-You can't? Why? MR. STEWART-That's a very troublesome area, but let's get into it. First of all, one last comment, here, that soil studies were made, throughout Queensbury. There were soil information available, I'm sure, but the point is. that the 30 percent permeability was imposed on every Plaza Commercial zone, from one end of this Town to the other, without regard to soil conditions. MR. MARTIN-Right. 7 - -- MR. KUPILLAS-Well, it was applied against the Town. That's the lowest rate, so it was applied against the whole Town, not just Commercial. MR. STEWART-Well, I don't have the Ordinance here. I think there is a lower rate. but... MR. CAIMANO-Just to set the record straight, there is a Neighborhood Commercial rate. at 10,000 square feet, which has a 25 percent, that's the only one lower than 30. MR. STEWART-Okay. Now then, it is always the option of an applicant, if he needs some relief from the Zoning Ordinance, to decide whether he wants to go to the Town Board, and ask for the Ordinance to be amended, or whether he would prefer to go to a Zoning Board of Appeals, and seek a variance. and when you're faced with that decision. and I've done it a lot. over the years, you scratch your head and everything can come into it, from the politics of the situation to the complexities of it, to a lot of factors, but, here, a new factor crept in, that is, again, the word is, unique. In 1988. Queensbury amended its Zoning Ordinance. In 1988, the Town of Bolton amended their Zoning Ordinance, too, and they hired the services of a landscape architect named Fred Holman to assist in the work and, as I am told, obviously, when you change an Ordinance, you go into the nitty gritty and the details and the meat of the thing. but then there's also the boiler plate provisions, the stock, standard language. Apparently, Mr. Holman provided that, but when we got to area variances, which is where I would have to go if I elected not to go for an amendment to the Ordinance, itself, I'd be seeking area variances. In this Ordinance and in the one in the Town of Bolton, Mr. Holman changed the law of the State of New York. The law of the State of New York spells out what standards have to be met to grant a use variance and what has to be established to grant an area variance. He changed the law. He put the requirement of a use variance on an area variance and you, literally, in this Town, cannot get an area variance, and we're in litigation over it now. It's costing my client over $20,000, and I don't ever want to get into that again until it's been straightened out. I've spoken to Mr. Holman. He agrees that the mistake has been made. He says, I don't know how it happened or who did it, but, yes, obviously, that is not the law of the State of New York. So, we have an Ordinance, here, that says, for an area variance. you can't get it unless you show that you can't possibly use the land for any legal purpose, without the variance. Now. that's not the law of the State of New York. For example, yes, I can use this land without a variance relating to a parking slot or something like that. He just got everything reversed, and it's in the law and it hasn't been taken out yet. MR. CAIMANO-I have a question, just to set our mind at ease, here, for the Legal Department, and that is, when we do this, if we do this, my impression is that anybody who decides to come into the Town of Queensbury can use this zone. provided the land is available. It can't be specific, and we can't be looking at it specific to this site, forgetting about anything else. Is that correct, or is that not correct? PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-If the Town Board should decide to create a new zone, and, as part of that process, also re-zone this parcel to that new zone. it is my opinion that that would be confined to this zone. In order for somebody new in Town or somebody whols currently in Town. to take another parcel and get .!! re-zoned, that would be an entirely new matter to come before the Board, because it involves the legislative process of the Board, and even a court cannot compel the Board to engage in its own legislative process, that is up to the Board whether or not they want to. So, it's my opinion that this would not necessarily be precedent setting. MR. CAIMANO-O, kay so, if we decide to vote that we're going to send to the Town Board a recommendation to accept this new zone, it is for here? MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MR. CAIMANO-In your opinion, nobody else can come in and use that? MR. DUSEK-Not unless the Town Board wants to re-zone it. MR. CAIMANO-I don't disagree with you. I have to lean to him, too. MR. MARTIN-It's not precedent setting. in that, now the Town is saying, when we have an enclosed commercial mall, that 20 percent of permeability is the acceptable standard? MR. DUSEK-jl[ they want to re-zone and create the new enclosed mall zone, they would be using this same criteria, but therels nothing to say that they have to do it, to begin with. MR. CAIMANO-But they couldn't use this. MR. CARTIER-Why couldn't they. MR. MARTIN-They could, they don't have to. 8 --- MR. DUSEK-Right. MRS. PULVER-Right. They could amend it. MR. CARTIER-So then we create another new zone. MR. DUSEK-If the circumstances call for it. MR. CAIMANO-Or not. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-We have 27, now, what's another one? If this is re-zoned. the new zoning, is that. in some way, exclusionary zoning? We don't have any other zone like this in the entire Town? Someone comes in and wants to put in a mall, but can't, anywhere, because there isn't any zoning for an enclosed mall. MR. DUSEK-Not necessarily. First of all, exclusionary zoning really deals with the concept of not providing, anywhere in your Town, for a certain type of use. For instance, there's been a lot of litigation over junkyards because communities will put in their zoning. or not put in their zoning, anyplace where a junkyard can go. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-That's exclusionary. Once you have a provision, some place. in your zone. for a particular type of use, you're no longer being exclusive. So. if you have an enclosed mall zone, it may be that thatls the only area of Town where it qualifies, for instance, that's a legislative decision. MRS. PULVER-Alright, but what I'm saying is, there isn't anymore land, there, available, for another mall. I mean, theylve used it all up. MR. DUSEK-In this area. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. DUSEK-Right. MRS. PULVER-I mean, this is an enclosed mall zone and they've used it all up and someone comes in and says, well, I want an enclosed mall, but I have no other place in the Town to put it, because you don't have another zone. MR. DUSEK-I don't think that would. necessarily. make it so that the Town has to re-legislate a new zone. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-For instance, we only have so much heavy industrial zone in the Town of Queensbury. There's nothing that says the Town Board has to create more heavy industrial. Maybe the area's saturated, at this point, with that type of, or maybe the soils or whatever else that may be considered, doesn't support that type of use. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-The fact is, they haven't totally excluded it from the cOlIIITunity. that's what's really. I think, critical, is whether or not there is a place. some place. in the community for this type of use. MRS. PULVER-So, if it's there and someone had a piece of property that might apply for an enclosed mall. they could come and ask the Town Board to re-zone it for an enclosed mall? MR. DUSEK-Sure. They could ask the Town Board, they could say, you know, you've got an enclosed mall zone, right now, on your books. We have a parcel that's of the size that your other zone is, and we would like to build another mall and, at that point, it would be up to the Town Board to decided whether or not they want to engage in the legislative action to re-zone that property to that enclosed mall zone and they mayor may not and it's not something that they're locked into. In some instances, and I think this is what the Board may be concerned about, agencies or government gets involved in a course of action and it becomes precedent setting. For instance, ZBA decisions will sometimes become precedent setting. Your own decisions may be of concern, because they'll be precedent setting in the next case, and you'll be hard pressed, when you get to court, to explain why you're doing something differently in the next case. The sharp distinction, here, is that the legislative processes are involved, and that's where the courts will back off, because it's something that's legislative and it's not something that the courts want to get involved in, in controlling, or creating precedents with. 9 -- -- MR. CARTIER-Anybody else? MRS. PULVER-I'm done. MR. STEWART-I want to make sure, I'm following Mrs. York's, okay, now we get, I'm going to skip, just a little bit, because there's two or three things she mentions that all come together, really. on one point. here, and that's parking. In order to have this mall and its expansion successful, we have to have adequate parking. By the same token, you don't want to blacktop the entire Town of Queensbury. So, you have to try to walk that line between what is reasonable, and how do you get it in there. Queensbury Ordinance, unlike almost any other Ordinance that I've ever heard of. has a ratio of parking to total floor area of a store. Whether it has customers in it or whether it's cold storage for carpets or anything, it's all measured the same way, to compute the necessary parking. that is not the way it is done, nationwide and industry wide. It is normally done on a concept of Gross Leaseable Area and there are certain ratios and standards that are studied by the tenants, the huge stores, you know, this is a vital piece of information to anybody in the business. John Meyer, who's here, is one of the experts in the Country, on this, and we can go into detail, but, very briefly. and he can give you the names of the studies and the authorities and all the rest, but, essentially, an enclosed shopping mall of this size. about 5.0 cars per thousand feet of Grossable Leasable Area works. These are studies that are accepted by people who build a shopping center. They're studies accepted by the large tenants, the Sears and the Penneys and so on, who rent stores. They're studies accepted by the smaller stores. Gross Leasable Area. nationwide, is the standard. This Ordinance uses phrases like "Gross Leasable Floor Space", but they really include everything. Common area, walkways, it's all included. Well, common areas don't generate customers and traffic. stores generate. MR. CAIMANO-My problem with that, though, and you're hitting at the heart of the matter, is that, in this particular mall, the middle of that walkway, if you will, is leasable space. Mr. Gagliano leases that space. MR. STEWART-And we measure it and we will obey it. MR. CAIMANO-O, kay that's all I'm concerned with. MR. STEWART-Incidentally, now, we work on 5.0 GLA, right, the ratio that we have, now, in the store, okay, and have, for 17 years. MR. CAIMANO-Alright. MR. STEWART-And it has worked for us, we would propose, if this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance goes through, to stay with a ratio that's tried and true. The big stores will accept it. It gives us enough, although, I'll tell you. there'll be, that day after, Saturday after Thanksgiving, I guess that's the biggest one of the year, and that Week before Christmas and sometimes a rainy day in August when, no matter how much black top you have, you can't do it all. MR. MARTIN-Okay, now, you're saying that the current Ordinance, which calculates it on a thousand square feet of Gross Leasable Floor Space is incorrect. Whatls that distinction, again? MR. STEWART-Gross Leasable Area. MR. MARTIN-Okay, there's a difference between Gross Leasable Area and Gross Leasable Floor Space? MR. STEWART-Well, first of all, the Ordinance says, Gross Leasable Floor Space, but it never defines it, anywhere. MR. MARTIN-Yes. right, I understand that. MR. STEWART-The only definition is Gross Floor Space, and that's what Mrs. York picks up, here. We say that the phrase that's known and understood studies whatever examples we could give you or the Town Board, when we get into it, are all based on Gross Leasable Area. There isn't this phrase used any other place, and we can't come up with studies that match it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I appreciate, by the way, the references to the Urban Land Institute and all that. I think that's very useful. MR. STEWART-Now, that definition of Gross Leasable Area is put into our proposal for one specific purpose, which is to attack the parking question, and I want you to understand that. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but, before you go on, Mr. Stewart, that means that, in your calculations, you have left out the storages, restrooms. etc., right? MR. STEWART-Restrooms, walkways, and so on. 10 '- -../ MRS. PULVER-Right, okay. MR. STEWART-Now. the next one is, size of the parking slot. This Ordinance requires, the one passed in 1988 that we're working with, now, 10 foot by 20 foot slots. That was the old, traditional number that's been around for, I guess, 40, 50 years, but the cars that are out there, tOday. aren't the same cars that are there. They are small, and they are compact. We proposed 9 foot long by 20 foot wide slots, obviously, to get more cars in without having to blacktop more area. The question that's got to come in to everybody's mind, is that going to create some problem and, for once, I can smile and say, I've got the answer. For 17 years, we have had 9 foot slots in that parking mall, and I've never had a complaint, to my knowledge. in all those years. So, there is one of the few times when we can say, there, it does work, and that was back when cars were bigger. Now. as you all know, if you've looked at a new car, lately, they're smaller and smaller and smaller. MR. CARTIER-How wide are the driving lanes, the travel lanes, there, now? JOHN MEYER MR. MEYER-My name is John Meyer. It's 20 feet. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. STEWART-There is, I think, just one other change. MR. GAGLIANO-Lou Gagliano, Aviation Mall. Also, in the language, on Page Three, regarding the 9 by 20 slots, I noted that highlighted on Staff Comments were the reference to Industrial Uses also being included in the 9 by 20. That represents the current Ordinance requirement for Industrial Uses. That is not an addition or a change. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. The rationale for that is, in Industrial Uses, you don't have cars going in and out. They're there for 6, 8, 10 hours, or whatever. MR. CAIMANO-When you were doing these calculations for parking, did you also take into consideration, for 1 through 4, and that kind of stuff? MR. MEYER-Yes, we did. My name is John Meyer. We did. As a matter of fact, I have designed, probably, in excess of three thousand shoppi ng centers and in excess of one thousand theatres, throughout the United States, and, as part of the studies that we used as reference, the Urban Land Institute, they have done various studies on parking requirements for shopping centers and on shared parking. and we have more parking, when you combine the, take into notion the requirement of the shopping center parking and the theatre parking, then is required, under any circumstances. I might add that. today, we're going, actually, to parking stall widths that are less than nine feet, because of the reduction and sustained reduction in car sizes. There are several trends of thought. in that regard. Some Ordinances, today. take into account and make separate provision for compact car spaces. as small as 7 and a half by 15 feet. Other Ordinances say, lets make them all one size and, where you have an Ordinance or a Town that has an Ordinance on the one size theory, they're generally speaking of going to 8 and a half width stall width. In this instance we're asking for all 9 foot stall widths. Just, time and again, throughout the northeast, I've seen where Ordinances are being downsized in that regard. It creates less stormwater, less need for paving and many other ramifications which are positive in nature and, rather than have these just excessively large stalls, that's one way to answer that. MR. CAIMANO-I suppose segregating the spots, like, having trucks and vans and whatever, park at the back, creates another problem that you can't even handle. right? MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-An enforcement problem. MR. MEYER-That's more difficult. but vans, again, believe it or not, the cubic space on the van is more, but the overall size is. really, fits well within that size parking stall. MRS. PULVER-You're not talking about reducing the handicapped parking, at all? MR. MEYER-No, the handicapped parking will be 12 foot wide spaces and they'll be two percent of the.... MRS. PULVER-They have to go, doesn't the new Ordinance say 14? MR. CARTIER-Sixteen. MRS. PULVER-Sixteen? MR. CARTIER-Eight lane and an eight access. 11 '-'" ---' MR. MEYER-Okay. MR. GAGLIANO-They currently comply and they will continue to comply. MR. MEYER-And they will comply, as far as number. There will be an increase in the number, consistent with the increase in area. MR. STEWART-The last element on parking, just briefly. is, you have a requirement, in a Plaza Commercial Zone of PODS, where the parking areas are broken up into 100 car segments and the idea, because I've discussed it with this Planning Board and with others in the past few years, it is to prevent a car going at high speed, pell mell, right down through the middle of those parking spaces, using it like a runway and people are walking and children are getting in and out of cars and it's a safety concept. Right now, we have PODS as big as 250, we ask for 150. Without being too site specific, I want to say, very quickly, that we have a huge perimeter road, going all the way around, big wide road that leads to each POD or each area. which a strip mall wouldn't have, so you don't have to race through the parking lot. You go a short distance to an outside perimeter road, and then you're on your way. Secondly, because we have those huge perimeter roads. we have big, heavy plow trucks to plow this thing. This is not like a smaller parking area. You get those big trucks in the little tiny PODS, it becomes very, very awkward to safely and adequately clear away that snow. So, that is the reason why that request and, of course, the more you put up, in the way of barricades or whatever you want to call the divider between them, then, of course, you take away parking area and you've got to have bigger parking lot, overall, to get the number of cars that your ratio requires. Lou, what have I missed, as far as making sure the Board is aware of each change and what it's about? MR. MARTIN-I have a question, as it relates to sizing the building, according to Gross Leasable Area, instead of overall square footage of the building. I want to hear your explanation for that. MR. STEWART-Okay. We're not sizing the building, and, when we're talking about parking ratios. MR. MARTIN-No, parking is fine. MR. STEWART-Okay. you understand that. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I understand that. I'm tal king about the amount of building allowed in the zone, as I understand it, is going to be calculated according to Gross Leasable Space? MR. STEWART-No, not unless I'm confused. No. We calculate a building like a building, regular square footage. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEWART-No. The only reason the GLA definition, we asked that it be put in the Ordinance is, it's never been there and, yet, that is the basis by which all ratios of parking. that we're familiar with, is normally based on. Nothing to do with the construction of buildings. MR. MARTIN-Well, it says, maximum density, at least 25 acres will be required to establish any allowable use, in an ESC Zone, up to 12,000 square feet of Gross Leasable Floor Area. MR. STEWART-Okay. that's the definition that's there, now. MR. MARTIN-No, that's the one you're proposing. MR. STEWART-No, Gross Leasable Floor Area is, I believe, the one that's in the Ordinance, already. We want to change it to Gross Leasable Area. MR. MARTIN-Right. So, you're saying, then, you would calculate, according to the size of the stores, and.... MR. STEWART-Yes, Gross Leasable Floor Area is from wall to wall, that's my complaint with it, when you use it to measure parking. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEWART-But when you measure a building, it's from outside wall to outside wall, including bathrooms and walkways, everything, by your present Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEWART-Now, I will answer any questions that you have. I do want to point out that we do have John Meyer, who was brought here at considerable expense, who is considered one of the foremost experts in the United States. 12 "'--' '--" MR. MARTIN-Wait a minute. You're saying Gross Leasable Floor Area is going to include all common areas? MR. GAGLIANO-Jim, I think the reference that you're making to the description at the top of the ESC-25A Zone? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. GAGLIANO-I think you're correct that we were in error by putting leasable ~ in there, in that Section. MR. CAIMANO-What should it be? MRS. PULVER-What page are you on. MR. CAIMANO-Gross Floor Area. MR. GAGLIANO-Gross Floor Area. MR. MARTIN-Gross Floor Area. not leasable floor area. MR. GAGLIANO-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Alright. MR. GAGLIANO-That was an error on our part. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. GAGLIANO-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-In other words, strike the word "leasable" out of there? MR. MEYER-Can I say one thing? Again, the purpose of the Gross Leasable Area is for the parking count. and that's where we would be using it. Other than that, it's the Gross Floor Area. MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, it's leasable that's typed, here. It's a typo. MR. MEYER-It needs to be corrected. as Lou said, and. lastly. without getting to site specifics, I do want to tell you that you have a big bundle of plans that Jeff and my firm and the rest of us have been working on. This is an indication of how these changes would fit on this site. The drawings are very, very specific and. if you want to take the time, you can see that. Of course, we know that we, assuming the zoning would be enacted, we will be back to you. but it ~ an indication. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I don't mean to suggest we haven't looked at those. We have. It's just that I want to keep this process. as I said, as well defined as we possibly can, without confusing the issue, for us or for you. Anybody else wish to address the Board, from the floor? MR. GAGLIANO-Lou Gagl iano, Aviation Mall. I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to come and answer any questions for you and go through this. Now. as you discuss, obviously, you can continue to ask questions and we'll continue to answer them for you. Thank you. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and that's the fact that maybe you should just take 15 seconds, from each of us, and find out where we stand, and maybe there is a consensus, already, and we can keep the thing moving. I wouldn't say we all give a speech, but just say. you know, where are we and are there any serious questions. MR. CARTIER-Okay, that sounds reasonable to me. Would you like to start? MR. CAIMANO-I think that there's a tendency. when people spend the kind of time, effort, and money that these folks have gone through, to say, we're trying to get hoodwinked, here, but, as a matter of fact, I think the opposite is true. If all of the people who came before this Board did their homework. then we wouldn't need this Board, actually. I don't see any problem with this zone, at all. It makes a lot of sense, and, as long as it doesn't violate any other precepts, in the Town, I think we should go ahead and approve it. or recommend it to the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I have philosophical problems with it, I guess. in terms of creating a zone to benefit a single applicant, particularly in terms of this specific area, which is rapidly approaching buildout and it has a significant set of problems. coming to us, in terms of traffic. I think some of those Levels of Service we've hit up there are D and a couple of them approach E and so on and I want to be, I know I'm talking site specific, here, and I want to be very careful that. whatever we do in this area, does not aggravate what is already becoming a difficult area to get through. 13 -- .-. MR. CAIMANO-I hope you don't misunderstand me. This is for recommendation to the Town Board. I'm going to have a lot of questions when it comes time for Site Plan Review. Traffic, since I live there, is a lli concern, to me. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. Well, I just want to be sure that we don't mislead the applicant in assuming that, if this zoning goes through, as written, that everything else is going to go through, as written, in terms of Site Plan. MR. STEWART-All I'd ask is that you be fair with them. I would hate that we raise traffic as a problem or an issue, tonight, if we're not going to be allowed to speak to it, because we are here and capable of speaking to it. MR. CARTIER-Fair enough. I would be willing to take comments about traffic. if the Board wants to get into that. MR. CAIMANO-I think we should do two things. Since this is a workshop session, I would not mind getting into traffic and asking the questions. I think, however, that we should make a determination, regarding the zoning, first, and then get into site specific things, that's what I think. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I would agree. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else care to comment? MRS. PULVER-I don't have any problem with it. MR. MARTIN-I think they've done a real nice job making their case and, again. I appreciate the technical references. Those are always helpful. The only thing that's a really sticky issue, but, or not sticky, but itls something nobody could really get a handle on, is the permeability. but I think, then, maybe, after we deal with this, on a site specific nature, for that one particular thing, it does appear to be very sandy soils, up there and so, from that standpoint, we can certainly look further at that site plan review, to see how that's going to be capable of dealing with it. Other than that, I don't really see a problem with this, from a zone change, in terms of a recommendation. MR. CARTIER-Understand, however, if this zone goes through, at 20 percent permeability, it's going to be extremely difficult to say to the applicant, no, you've got to have more than 20 percent permeabi 1 i ty. MR. MARTIN-Right, that's the one issue that's tough. MR. CAIMANO-In all fairness. though. the applicant has already had more than 20 percent permeability. Is that correct? MR. GAGLIANO-Thatls correct. MR. CAIMANO-From what your numbers are. MRS. PULVER-I don't have any problems with it. I, specifically, after work, went through the mall, toni ght, to check out the parking and the lanes and I didn't know that they were only 9 feet wide. I have a full sized Oldsmobile 98, was in and out, maneuvered. fine, and my full sized car is not a full sized car what it would have been, probably, 10 years ago, so that was probably the one thing that stuck on my mind is, what is it going to be like if we have smaller parking and I didn't know what the parking, the size was. and it seemed adequate. I didn't have any trouble getting around. MR. LAPOINT-I agree with Nick. I think we should keep it to a two phased process. where we try to decide on the zoning, first. and then get to the specifics about the site, itself. MR. KUPILLAS-I don't have any major problems with it. I just have the same concerns about the permeability, but I can understand where they're coming from, that you would have to apply it back to the whole piece of property, and that would be, I guess it would create a hardship, but, parking, I don't see a problem, with cars, today. They're six foot wide, at max. MR. MARTIN-If what Mr. Stewart says is true, about our Ordinance, it's a shame you couldn't go through a variance. I think that would probably be the..... MR. STEWART-It's a situation that I'd like to see corrected. Mr. Dusek and I have discussed it and we're aware of it. I don't want to make it part of this, because I don't want to create problems. MR. MARTIN-No, I'm not saying that. MR. STEWART-But it's a true dilemma that's facing everyone. 14 '-'" MR. CAIMANO-Well, if that's so, it gets back to, without getting off the topic. here, it gets back to something that's near and dear to the Supervisor's heart, and that's delaying an applicant and having extraordinary expenses and. if that's so, then maybe sometime or other that ought to be looked at by everybody, too. I mean. that's ridiculous. If it could have been handled another way. MR. DUSEK-If I may, Mr. Chairman. Just to address that one concern being raised by the Board. First of all, I feel there is a problem with the Statute, or our Ordinance, in terms of, it needs to be corrected, and. in fact, there will be a meeting with the Town Board, in the very near future. I think it's on the 14th of this month, that's a date that comes back to mind, where at, the Board will be discussing all of the types of zoning revisions that are needed, to the Ordinance. Basically, I'm happy to say, I don't think it's going to be a major restructure of the Ordinance. but rather just a process of going through and cleaning up different areas that have proven to need that, as a result of this past couple of years, operating under that. The other thing is. I'm not, altogether, convinced.. . MR. CARTIER-Let me interrupt you, right there. Continuing to get off the topic. here. are the Planning Board and Zoning Board going to have any kind of input into that process? MR. DUSEK-I'm not sure exactly what the Town Board has in mind, at this point. Of course, this Board usually gets all referrals for proposed Zoning Ordinance changes, anyway. so I assume that will continue. My understanding is that this is just going to be a meeting to just kind of get organized, type of thing and take a look at what it is we're getting complaints on, what we feel needs to be revised. I know that Lee will be involved in that meeting. MRS. YORK-I haven't been told. MR. DUSEK-Or somebody from your department, then, but that is in the works. The second thing is that I just wanted to say that I'm not altogether sure that, even if we were operating under what is the traditional criteria for an area variance that this would necessarily qualify for that. I'm not prepared to say it doesn't, but, on the other hand, the traditional criteria for an area variance does require dollars and cents proof, practical difficulties and I'm not altogether convinced that that would be an answer, even if it could be argued that we should be following, strictly, the common law decisions that are made by the courts. So, I just wanted to express those two thoughts to the Board. just so that you know that the Town is aware of it and is concerned and is going to be addressing these things. MR. CARTIER-Well, does everybody have the questions answered that they wanted to have answered? Has everybody had a chance to say what they wanted to say? If that is the case. then I think we are prepared to entertain a motion, regarding a recommendation to the Town Board. You may want to take some time to think about exactly what you want to include in that recommendation. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the things we want to include, certainly, would be the 20 percent permeability, and no less, right? MRS. PULVER-Well, I was going to say. are we disputing anything that they've proposed? MR. CAIMANO-Not really. You mean on the last page of Project Description and Executive Summary? MRS. PULVER-Yes. How about 150 cars? I don't see any problem with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we don't have to do this. All we have to do is recommend to the Town Board that they go ahead and set up the zone. MRS. PULVER-No, this is what they want to re-zone it to. You want to recommend that they stick to this criteria, don't you? MR. CAIMANO-What? Well. I was looking at this page in the Executive Summary. MR. MARTIN-Actually, it starts from here, back. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, I know. MR. CARTIER-We have some options, here. One of which is to phrase a recommendation, in terms of accepting it as is, or, another option is to phrase a recommendation, in terms of alterations that the Town Board should consider. MR. CAIMANO-I think the Town Board can phrase their own Ordinance, and I think that our job is to say to them, we approve it, but I think you've got to take a look at this, and that is the 20 percent permeabi 1 i ty, the 5.0, those kinds of thi ngs. I don't thi nk we shoul d get in the busi ness of putti ng the Ordinance together, unless I'm wrong. Lee? 15 MRS. YORK-As Pete said. you can approve, deny, or just make suggestions to the Town Board. It's a recomendation to the Town Board, if you think this is an appropriate zone, if you think that there should be modifications made to that zone, either additions or deletions, or however you want to put it. MR. CAIMANO-Right. My only point is this, I think we'll give the recommendations. to approve it, if we make the motion, we make the motion to approve. and here's our If we say that, approve it like this, or give the wording, then that seems to me to the people who have to write the Ordinance. All we're doing is saying go ahead. right? If we're going recommendations. be an insult to MR. CARTIER-No, we have a right, as a Planning Board, to make recommendations. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but Nick is saying he doesn't want to write the Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but I don't want to write the Ordinance. All I want to do is say, we recomend this. Yes, go ahead, we recommend this, and let them put the language in. MRS. PULVER-He doesn't want to write the language. MR. CARTIER-Yes, we're on the same wavelength, here. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So, do you want to make a motion? MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MOTION TO RECOtltEND 10 THE 10l1li BOARD APPROVAL OF PETITIOII FOR A CHANGE OF ZOIlE PIa-go THE PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: That it be changed to an ESC-25A Zone, with the following recomendations: Number One, in the Project Description and Executive Summary submitted by the applicant, on .the next to last page. under Section 4.020 P, under Maximum Density, the word "leasable" should be deleted from Gross Leasable Floor. Number Two, lot permeability should be set at not less than 20 percent. Number Three, that the applicant's description in Project Description and Executive Summary behind the tab text of Proposed Amendments and ending with Summary. be accepted as written. Number Four, the applicant is to provide a definition for the term Comon Mall Area, for consideration by the Town Board. Duly adopted this 5th day of November, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Kupillas, Mr. Caimano NOES: Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Hagan MR. CAIMANO-(Referring to Motion) Number Three, parking should be at 5.0 per thousand square feet. MR. STEWART-Of what? MR. CAIMANO-Of Gross Leasable Area. MR. CARTIER-That's understood to mean, areas, hallways that are leased out space. also, correct? MRS. PULVER-Yes, like the little Silvermine thing that's figured in there. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, add to that, as defined by the applicant. in Project Description and Executive Summary, under the paragraph, Proposed Amendment, Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Dusek would like to make a coment. MR. DUSEK-Just a question. Is this recommendation, now, also a recommendation of approval on the other Sections of the Zoning Ordinance that are being requested to be revised, all that dealing with parking and the Sections before, or no? MR. CAIMANO-I'm just changing the zone. MR. DUSEK-Because there's other Sections of the Ordinance that are being. MR. CAIMANO-I know. there's a whole Section. you're right. 16 -' MRS. PULVER-Yes, see, I would be more inclined to go with the whole package. MR. MARTIN-I think, if you just re-worded that to say that we recommend approval as written, with the striking of leasable, there. MRS. PULVER-Go with that, Nick, with the recommendation of nothing less than 20 percent permeability. MR. MARTIN-That's already in there. MR. CAIMANO-It's in there. MRS. PULVER-Does it say, not less. or just, does it say. what does it say? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's understood, I think. MR. CARTIER-Paul, I think the question you're asking has to do with definitions and so on, is that correct? MR. CAIMANO-No. It's under "Proposed Amendment. Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance". It says, one, two, three. four, five. MR. CARTIER-That's what I mean. The thing titled "Proposed Amendment, Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance", that's your question, correct? MR. DUSEK-Right. As I understand the proposal that's before you, it starts with that proposed amendment to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. It includes Definitions, Changes in Various Parking Regulations, under Article Seven, ultimately. concluding with the 4.020 Creation of a New Zone, and I think the Board has been talking about that. this evening, but I wasn't clear, by the motion, whether it was your intent to include an approval on all of it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, you're right. I'm going to start a new Number Three, that the applicant's description in the Project Description and Executive Summary behind the tab text of Proposed Amendments and ending with the Summary, be accepted as written. MR. CARTIER-Okay, let me point one thing out to you, just for clarification. Under Gross Leasable Area, third line from the bottom. "Gross Leasable Area shall not include Common Mall Area". Do you understand that what you're saying, here, is that they're not counting the hall space, even though that space is leased out to Silvermine. MRS. PULVER-No, they ~ counting that. MR. CAIMANO-No. MR. MARTIN-See, that's why I had leasable stricken from that one. MR. CAIMANO-That's why he changed that. MR. MARTIN-See, they define the building size as Gross Area, not Leasable Area. MR. CARTIER-Well, I just want to be sure I'm clear, here. "Gross Area shall not include Common Mall Area", exit corridors. surface corridors. MR. CAIMANO-If this is the middle of the mall and these are the stores, just draw it out in plain language, and there are keyosks, here. that's part of the Gross Leasable Floor Area, this is not. MR. STEWART-That's right. MR. MEYER-That's correct. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. STEWART-If we rent it out, it's included for the measuring purposes. If it's just an empty corridor, it is not. MRS. PULVER-So, the Silvermine is in it. It's included for parking and everything else. MR. CAIMANO-Now, I don't know how the Town Board is going to tie that down, but that's what they mean, okay. So, Three would be this whole Section. MR. MARTIN-Are you saying you'd like to see a definition of Gross Area, in addition to Gross Leasable Area? 17 ---- MR. CARTIER-No. I'm just concerned about this phrase "Shall not include Common Mall Area". I assume Common Mall Area is the hallways. Aren't we creating a paradox, here, or a contradiction? MR. GAGLIANO-Lou Gagliano, Aviation Mall. Portions, Mr. Cartier, of the Common Area are not leasable. For instance, the Town Ordinance requires that you have certain widths for safe passage through the Common Area. You can't lease those areas, and that's really what we're referring to. If we lease portions of the Common Mall Area. that's part of Gross Leasable Area. so a keyosk, Silvermine, as you mentioned, is part of that computation. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KUPILLAS-But they weren't there when you opened. MRS. YORK-Perhaps a definition of this Common Mall Area would be appropriate to insert, a definition of Common Mall Area, in the Ordinance, as part of the submission. MR. CAIMANO-Will you do that? MR. GAGLIANO-We can certainly put something together. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. KUPILLAS-Yes, because, you know, when malls open. they're not full. Those are big empty spaces, and that would be when these calculations would be determined. but afterwards, they fill up, and you're not going to run around and change your parking spaces when you bring in a Silvermine or whatever there is in the middle, but they're empty, then. MR. CAIMANO-Maybe the word "potential", needs to be added into that, into those three words, Gross "potential". MR. KUPILLAS-I mean, it's got to be a number, like you mentioned. You have to retain so much for passage way. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, you do address that, though. You say. the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy. MR. MEYER-It's happened before, we've made mistakes and we've done things right. This hasn't been the first time, nor the first project, that this has happened. What is typically done and what is being done at Aviation Mall is that keyosks are part of the Gross Leasable Area. So. therefore. they are included in that area. whether they are built, initially, or later. So, that there is a certain finite limit, as to the number of keyosks, and/or other Gross Leasable Area that can be constructed under current day conditions or under the expansion conditions. With the definition which you have there, which says that keyosks, or should say that keyosks are included in the Gross Leasable Area, I believe that the Town is adequately protected, even though there may be an addition of a keyosk or one or more, in the future. As long as the overall Gross Leasable Area is in synch with the amount of parking, then that is permissible. It is. typically, not the case to include the Common Mall Area for parking or any other purposes. because it's strictly. as Lou said, it's to provide passage between stores and exits for shoppers and it doesn't create, for example, a need for additional parking. MR. CARTIER-I understand all that. MR. MEYER-Under the current mall. right now, there is an additional 10.000 square feet that could be built, under the current conditions, the amount of parking that we have and what have you, and that has not been built, but there is an additional 10.000 square feet that could be built, right now, because we have adequate parking for it, for example. It does take into account, the keyosk areas. MRS. YORK-Mr. Meyer, could I just ask one question? Is the current food court part of your calculation for parking? MR. MEYER-The store areas of the food court are part of the parking count. The seating areas are not. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. MEYER-And the reason for that is that the seating areas do not create the need for additional parking, particularly during peak periods. The people who eat there, in the main, are people who are shoppers who are there already. They have already parked their car and they're not bringing additional shoppers there. MRS. YORK-So, you're theory is that no individuals simply go to the mall to eat. MR. MEYER-No, that's not my theory. 18 MR. CAIMANO-To sit, is what he said. They go to eat, but they don't go just to sit. MR. MEYER-Well, that's one thing. but. also, there are a certain number of people who go to the food court to simply eat and leave, but they are the very, very minority. It is not a significant number of people who do that, and there is not an impact on the parking because the greatest percentage of people ~ mall shoppers who are there, who use the eating facilities. There is, however, nothing to prevent you or me or anybody else in this room or anybody else in the United States from going to the mall, simply to eat, but it is not the case, where that is any significant number of people. MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me just make a practical comment, here. We seem to be overlooking this, I think, and I certainly want to tie down the motion as tightly as possible, Mr. Chairman, but the practical matter is, they're expanding this business in order to make ~ business. If someone were to design a shopping area that has inadequate parking. they would soon loose their business, and, therefore, it would be self defeating. We would have our problems solved and you'd go out of business. I can't conceive of people spending money to create an area in which they're going to loose business. That's not what they're here for. MR. MEYER-We concur one hundred percent and, not only does the Pyramid Company concur, but the major department store leases require parking, have specific parking requirements for that same reason. If we were to provide, 30, 40, 70, or 80 percent of the five per thousand. the proposed to do that, the department store leases would not permit it, and it's a very simple reason why and that is, they, too, require adequate parking, so that they can survive. I would. again, I just, I'm a member of the Urban Land Institute, which I think is, I think, in the Planning profession, it is a very highly and well respected organization. They have done numerous parking studies for shopping centers, shared parking, theatre parking, offices, and so on, throughout the United States. Again, if you look at those latest parking studies, generally speaking, for a shopping center of this size, not taking into account the shared parking advantages, with the theatre and so on, 4.5 per thousand, a parking index of 4.5 per thousand of Gross Leasable Area is what is now required for a center of this size. We're asking that this actually be five per thousand, a reduction from 5.5. You will have more than adequate parking, except for approximately 5 or 6 days of the year, where, as Bob said, and I agree. no matter how much parki ng you provi de. you woul d sti 11 not have enough, but the desi gn standards. here, wi 11 be more than adequate for the needs. MR. CARTIER-I agree with what you said, Nick, but I would also remind you that we are a Planning Board, and we have to look at the off site impacts of whatever's going to happen, here, and I'm going to be sure to flag the applicant's that we are going to be doing that at Site Plan. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not talking about Site Plan. I'm talking about this amendment, which we are now in the process of trying to send something to the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-Just to finish that off. Can we get a, just to be sure that we're going to get a definition of Common Mall Area in there, somewhere. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, so. you're going to get, Number Three is going to be this entire Section, as written. Number Four, you want to put that definition in, right? Did you want to change the definition? MR. MARTIN-Or provide one. MR. CARTIER-Provide a definition for Common Mall Area. Mr. Dusek has been waiting patiently. MR. DUSEK-I'm just trying to keep with what I think is the thought of the Board. When you said that the applicant is to provide a definition, this would be for consideration by the Town Board? MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-If you want to add those words in there, Maria, please be my guest. MR. DUSEK-Just to keep the tenor. I don't think that you're trying to say that they have to, the Town Board has to adopt what they offer, but it'll be up to the Town Board to work with what it has. MR. CAIMANO-The Town Board doesn't have to adopt anything. This is our recommendation. The Town Board can turn this down. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, gentleman. MR. CAIMANO-Do we want to talk about parking, real quick. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Not parking, traffic. 19 ---' MR. CAIMANO-You brought that up, do you want to do that? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I think if we do anything, it's going to be in terms of directions, regarding what we want to see at Site Plan, what we want dealt with at Site Plan. Do you want to get into that? MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. The lawyer's going to stop us. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman and Board members, not to be a spoiler. here, but one of the other items that the Town Board will need your input on will be the SEQRA type items because. as they will be designated the lead agency, or will take that designation, during the next couple of days. I think, on Thursday, they have a Board meeting that they will be acknowledging that all other agencies have given them that status. They, after that time, within 20 days, have to make a decision, as to what to do, in terms of SEQRA, whether there will be a significant impact, or whether there will be no impact, or whether there will be impacts that can be mitigated, relative to the project, so that they. in turn, can decide whether they'll issue a negative dec. or whether they'll require an EIS. So, you're input, I know, they'll be looking to you for that, as well. MR. CARTIER-Which may be the appropriate place to bring those issues up. MR. CAIMANO-Now? MR. CARTIER-No, when we... MR. MARTIN-As part of the Environmental Review. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Well, you say you want us to give them recommendations. now. or then, at that SEQRA Review meeting? MR. DUSEK-If the Board is ready. now, I think this would be the ideal situation. MR. CARTIER-We're going to get into a scoping session, here. at some point. I hope, and I think it would be more appropriate for us to have a chance to think about that and get together with Staff and talk those things over. So, I think what Paul's suggesting, somewhat obliquely. but nevertheless, suggesting, is that we probably ought to wait. MR. MEYER-We would be more than happy, too, Mr. Cartier, to come back for another workshop or any type of special meeting that you might request our presence at. MR. DUSEK-You would want to plan this, though, within the next 20 days. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, are we talking about another meeting? We have to wait until the Board acts, don't we? MR. DUSEK-No. This would be a comments relative to the environment, insofar as 1Q!!. will be concerned with them, with your Site Plan. The Town Board will be looking at the environment with the re-zoning perspective, but you should be looking at any concerns that you feel ought to be addressed, before you get to your review, because what will happen is, once the SEQRA part of it's been determined, the Town Board would then go and do their thing. on whether to re-zone or not re-zone, then if they did re-zone, it would come back to your Board, at that point, for Site Plan Review, at which time you would not have an opportunity to address SEQRA. at all. You would only be looking at Site Plan, pursuant to the Town Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we need input from them and from Tom. MRS. PULVER-Right, you need to know about traffic, now. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, and we also need input from Tom. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We need engineering comments. Do I hear you correctly. that one SEQRA Review is going to be done for both Zoning and Site Plan? MR. DUSEK-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-I don't know. Does this Board feel that they have enough detail, at this point, to discuss? MR. MARTIN-When it comes to things like traffic. in a situation like this, I like to see comments from the Department of Transportation and so on and I'd like to see that sort of opportunity given. 20 - -.-/ MRS. PULVER-Here's your study. MR. CARTIER-But that's from the applicant. That's not from what Jim's talking about. MR. MEYER-John Meyer again. I want to point out that we have submitted a number of studies to your Board. Those include, the soils report. well. first of all they include a Long Environmental Assessment Form, with several supplementary reports. MR. CARTIER-To your Board, meaning the Town Board? MR. MEYER-And to your -Board, it, initially, went to, copies were distributed to the Town Board and to your Board, that is the Planning Board, as well as numerous other interested or involved agencies or potentially interested or potentially involved agencies. Just briefly, you have a complete set of site plans, including layout, grading, utilities. landscape, details, profiles. and you have a complete traffic study, analyzing the traffic along Route 254, Aviation Road. and the areas of concern, from Route 9, up to the Northway ramps. That traffic study was based upon counts made this year. It's based upon the existing conditions and the projected traffic, in accordance with the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Rates. You have a soils report which. incidentally, shows very sandy soils. You have a set of drainage plans and drainage calculations which indicate a stormwater recharge system, through the use of infiltrators, under the parking lots, to recharge and control stormwater runoff from the property, in addition to the use of the existing detention basins. MR. CARTIER-I am not arguing with the completeness or the detail with which you have submitted information. My question, however, is when does Staff have a chance to review all that? MR. MEYER-I had one more comment and I'll get out of here. We have, as part of this process, the Town Board has seen fit to submit these documents to the County Planning Board for their review and recommendations. We have had Staff meetings with the County Planning Board and the County Engineer. They submitted the plans and reports and studies to the State Department of Transportation. The State is in the process of reviewing the Traffic Study, in detail, and the plans, in detail. We expect their report within the next several weeks. I would expect that all of these reports, not only would come to the Town Board, but also to your Board, for, perhaps, consideration and guidance. The point being that the traffic is being looked into, in substantial detail, as is a number of other items, which are of particular concern and we anticipated would be of concern to your Board and the Town Board. MR. CAIMANO-But may not get here in time for what you said, Paul. MR. CARTIER-Okay, maybe I'm misreading what I just heard, but it sounds to me like what I just heard is, we're being cut out of the loop, here? MR. DUSEK-No, not at all, and I think the first thing is, is that, what this Board would want to consider is what types of reports you want to assist you, because that's within you prerogative to ask for, what people you want to assist you in that review and what elements you're going to be looking at, which, generally, obviously, will be what you have before you, probably, many of the things that they've already addressed, but, just generally what it is that you're going to want to do and then, maybe, at some point, have another meeting, at which time you could consider these things and get together and talk and review what's been given to you. MR. CARTIER-Do I hear, within 20 days we have to do that? MR. DUSEK-Well, now, there is an exception under the Ordinance. that if the material is not available or if additional information is needed, you can get additional time. MR. CARTIER-By additional material, you refer to in-house Staff Report, Town Engineer? MR. MARTIN-Anything we so determine. MR. DUSEK-Anything you think you need, in order to reach your SEQRA conclusions. MR. CARTIER-Okay, well, I can see that we have to meet again, but we also. if I'm reading Paul right, give some directions as to what we want to see back from Staff, correct? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MR. CAIMANO-Can I say something, though, to you. Your Traffic Study was done, some time ago, the one thing I find wrong, at least from my perspective, with your Traffic Study on 254, is that I wonder, not wrong, I shouldn't say that, I question, I wonder if you took into consideration the new light that is now at the corner of Howard Johnsons and the Northway, and the reason I say that is because, on Friday night, right now, traffic stops up the hill, just before the first light, which is up aft, 21 '--' ----' if you will, of Warren Tire, and we crawl up that hill. ß!J1.. additional traffic will stop that, at Route 9. So, I wonder if your studies have taken that into consideration? MR. MEYER-Yes, our studies have taken into consideration. There's a question, in my mind, as to whether tha t 1 i ght has been fi ne tuned, to the poi nt that it I S supposed to be, in accordance wi th the green, per cycle, Gover C ratios, that have been set by the State Department of Transportation. MR. CAIMANO-I don't know. MR. MEYER-You should be, I want to advise you that Pyramid paid for the re-construction of the two lights at Greenway and at the most easterly driveway. They were all rebuilt in the last year, within the last year, and now are into full operation. That has been a substantial improvement in the operation of traffic at those signals. MR. CAIMANO-What consideration have you given to entering your mall from the new light, which is not in operation, at Route 9, through the Grand Union Plaza, or behind it? MR. MEYER-We have studied the possibility of a second or, actually, of a fourth access to this mall, through the area between Grand Union and the Nigro Strip Shopping Center. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. MEYER-We have studied that as an alternative and provlslon is made, in our plan, to allow such a road to be built, if, as, and when the right-of-way could be procured from people that we don't control, for example, NiMo, but we have made, yes, we have studied that. We have taken that into account and, as a traffic engineer, I tell you that this, certainly, would not harm the operations of the mall. It is not required, under the conditions that we're setting, here, for the expansion, but any additional access would certainly help. The degree to which it helps is questionable, because you do have adequate capacity, now. MR. CAIMANO-It may be questionable, but the practical matter, again, and I hate to be practical about it, is that, in the summer time, or at Christmas time, there are any thousands of cars turning off of Route 9, that take that first entrance into the mall, presumably, they could go another way, which would alleviate the pressure on 254. MR. MEYER-We certainly agree with that. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but suppose the zone was radically changed. This site plan is built or designed to the specific zone described and there's no point in reviewing that until the zone has been approved, so we know this is what's going to apply, okay. Just, what we've been talking about is who we want to look at this stuff and who we want to get reports from, here, and I think we've got a time problem. I don't know that we can get that done within the 20 days that I think you're referring to. Who do we want to hear from? Warren County Public Safety? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, we want to hear from Town Highway, from State DOT, the Warren County Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-Warren County Highway. MR. CARTIER-The Warren County Highway. MR. MARTIN-I want to hear from our Consulting Engineer. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Tom, are you comfortable with analyzing any traffic reports that have been given to us, or do we need to get something outside? MRS. YORK-I have already sent everything to DOT. when the information was originally presented to me, and they are analyzing it, their traffic safety people are, as well as their planning staff. So, we will be having information from them. MR. YARr«>WICH-I would recommend that the Town look at the traffic, in terms of internalization, as well. The State DOT will not be looking at those aspects of the proposal. MRS. YORK-Do you feel comfortable looking at that. or do you want to have.... MR. YARr«>WICH-It depends how the Town can handle it. We would either engage with someone who would be particularly well suited for this, or we would advise the Town on some people that they could use. It's up to the Town on how they would want to do it. Myself, I wouldn't be capable of reviewing the work for this particular project. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think that IS normal procedure, right? We rely on engineering staff to decide whether or they would want to handle it or get outside help. 22 --./' MR. YARMOWICH-We would be happy to do that for the Town. MR. CARTIER-Fine, that's great. MR. CAIMANO-I have a novel idea. I just wonder, since we're all waiting for this material, and I guess I'm really asking the attorney's this. What's to prevent the presentation, not the argumentation and the voting, if necessary, but the presentation of all of this information to all of us, at once, instead of each i ndi vi dua 1 Board spread out over 20 mi 11 i on years. Why do we have to go from one meeti ng to another meeting to another meeting. Why can't all of the Board people be present while all of this information is presented, rather than hold up the applicant, one way or another. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about a joint Town Board, Planning Board meeting. MR. CAIMANO-Forget the Town Board. I'm talking about the, the Town Board has to do their own thing, but why can't the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, the Warren County Planning Board. MRS. PULVER-The Zoning's not in it. MR. CARTIER-The Zoning Board won't be involved. MR. CAIMANO-The Zoning Board's not even in it. The Warren County Planning, ourselves. Why can't all this information be presented at once, to one Board? MR. CARTIER-Do you gentlemen want to sit in front of 27 different people? MR. CAIMANO-As opposed to 27 different meetings? Well, it depends on who's ox is being gored, here. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Dusek, go ahead. MR. DUSEK-Thank you. The only concern I would have, in that regard, is that each Board is approaching this project from a little bit different of an angle. Warren County Planning is considering it, in terms of a recommendation and report type thing, just like what you did tonight, on both aspects of the project, but your Board is going to be. primarily, concerned, in the future, now, with the site plan, because you've done your part, in connection with the zoning. So, I would be a little concerned about bringing everybody together. out of concern that it may get a little confusing. MR. CARTIER-Not may, definitely, I think. MR. LAPOINT-Well, as Nick stated, there wouldn't be the big, rigorous go around with it, that it would be presented to us, as an approach. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, then we would go away maybe the next day, and consider, just dream a little bit, at a Special Meeting. we'd consider our aspects of it. The County's over here. considering their aspects of it, but everything is being done, kind of, together. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess my answer to that is, this is a ~ project. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-And I think we ought to do it by the numbers. MR. CAIMANO-We are. MR. CARTIER-Well, by the numbers I mean, separate meetings and so on. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. MEYER-John Meyer, again. We would be happy to do whatever you want. If you would like a combined meeting, we'd do a combined meeting, but I can tell you that we have already met, that is. the applicant has already met with the Warren County Planning Commission Staff to answer any questions that they might have and to make a presentation of the entire plan and of all the documents. Similarly, we are, as we would do under normal circumstances, have been in contact with the State DOT, with John Dana's office, who is reviewing this, specifically, with regard to traffic, as they are required under State Law and Regulations. However, if you want additional meetings, we'll be happy to attend them. MR. CAIMANO-I just threw it out for thought. MR. MEYER-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We were working on a list of who we want to hear from. We got down to the point where we were tal king about traffic and potential for outside help, reviewing the Traffic Study. Is there anything else we need to concern ourselves with, in terms of who we want to hear from? 23 --- --...-' MR. MARTIN-Tom's thoughts on the drainage. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I think that's in-house. MR. MARTIN-That's standard. yes. MR. CARTIER-That's all engineering. What else? Anything else? MRS. PULVER-Just to set up a time. I think, when we're going to meet, again, on this. MR. CAIMANO-Well, you brought up a point, we can't do this until after. MRS. PULVER-Well, Lee, do you have any idea when the reports might get back? MRS. YORK-I sent them out, at least, ten days ago. MRS. PULVER-How long does it normally take? MRS. YORK-I'll give everyone a call, tomorrow, that's involved. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MRS. YORK-We have heard back from some of the agencies, already. I have not heard from DOT, at this point. MR. CARTIER-Please unconfuse me. What is the time clock running on, the SEQRA Review? MR. DUSEK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-The SEQRA Review. But, as you said, it can be extended, if we feel that we need more time. MR. DUSEK-Sure. My understanding of the law is, is that once there's this type of a situation, where you have a lead agent, the lead agent is, primarily, charged with the duty of carrying out SEQRA and making its findings and making its initial determinations, but it's getting feedback from the other agencies, and, although there is a 20 day time clock period, clearly set forth in the statute, and I don't want to mislead you in that regard, and although, too, I think that there may be extensions of time available. the other thing I would think that you have to aggressively pursue that time schedule, to the best of your ability, and as long as you do that, and if you run over the time, I donlt see that there's going to be any serious consequences. MR. CARTIER-Are we required to get the agreement of the applicant to extend that time frame? MR. DUSEK-I don't believe you are. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-But we won't really have to, because we can do it within 20 days. They've had the information 1& days already. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but can everybody get their stuff reviewed and we can get traffic on line and all that sort of stuff? MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what Lee said, she's going to call them tomorrow. MRS. YORK-Mr. Dusek, is the potential parcel, which the applicant is proposing to buy, here, does that have to be taken care of. before the Site Plan Review? Are you saying that, because it is part of the site? MR. DUSEK-The purchase of the parcel, or actually the sale of the parcel by the Town, is all part of the package, but it is something that, if it is not concluded. for some reason, either by contract or whatever phase it's at, the Site Plan Review, ultimately, could be made conditional or contingent upon that. In other words, I think you can review the project, with the assumption in mind. and say that, if it doesn't go through, then they don't have their Site Plan approval. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's some specific wording, there. Completion of contract, or closing of contract or something, okay, I understand. MR. DUSEK-I feel like I have to say this for the record. That's not to say that the applicant couldn't come back to you and say, well, gee, we can't buy the parcel, we want to do something different. I mean. that's always possible, too, but I'm saying, assuming that that's their proposal, to go with a parcel, I don't think that has to hold this Board up, if that sale isn't concluded. 24 , ---'" MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, Lee, you are going to get in touch with people and. I assume. can we set a date, at this point, for a meeting to deal with all of this, or do we need to wait? MRS. YORK-Do you want to look at it after one of your regularly scheduled meetings? MRS. PULVER-That's what I was looking at the calendar. MRS. YORK-No. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, that's what she meant. MRS. YORK-Yes, or prior to a meeting. What you're doing is generating a list of concerns that you want to send to the Town Board, to be incorporated into their SEQRA Review. MR. CARTIER-Sure. Do you want to do that at the next? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-I think that would be the better thing to do. MRS. PULVER-At our regular meeting? MR. CAIMANO-Before, like, 6:30. 6:45. MR. CARTIER-Meet a 6:45, so we donlt run into aerobics. MRS. PULVER-Okay, so, the 20th? MR. CARTIER-It's the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. MRS. PULVER-Yes, November 20th. at 6:45. MR. CARTIER-6:45 to 7:30. MRS. PULVER-6:45, Lee, is that okay? MRS. YORK-Sure. MR. CARTIER-To generate a list of concerns and I will assume, in the meantime, we'll all have a chance to look through this pile of material that we have and generate our own lists, right? MRS. YORK-I will get you any material that comes in, as soon as I have it. As soon as anything comes in, you will have it. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Are we at a point, now, where we can take a break? MR. GAGLIANO-Can I make a couple of closing statements? As you work through this whole process, if you have any questions, feel free to call me, directly, I'll be happy to turn you over to any of the consultants. individually, as well. MR. CARTIER-It will go through the Planning Department, if questions come up, that's just normal operating procedure. but thank you for the offer. MR. GAGLIANO-Did you want to say something? MR. STEWART-No. I just thought there was a little bit of confusion. It says something about, the Staff had had this for 10 days. This whole package, I think, went through Staff, the first week in October. MRS. PULVER-No. Lee had said she sent it out to DOT about 10 days ago. So, I mean, they've had it, now, for 10 days, that's why she's going to call them, tomorrow. MR. STEWART-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Any other unresolved issues. questions, anybody has, with regard to this particular situation? Okay. Thank you. 25 -- -- MR. CARTIER-Next item on the agenda has to do with Modification to Planning Board Policy and Procedures, and the Legal Department has very nicely put together a resolution for us, and I think the most appropriate way to do this, with the Boardls agreement, is to go through this thing. paragraph by paragraph, and make whatever cOl1l11ents we would like, and, also, Lee, you have comments in various sections, too, and why don't you jump in, in whatever paragraph we happen to be at, okay? MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman. with the Board's permission, I'm going to leave you. Karla has actually done the final draft of that, before you, and, unless you wanted me to talk about the other thing. MR. CARTIER-You can have the rest of the night off. Okay. any problem with the Whereas's? Okay, going down to, "Now Therefore, Be It Resolved. that the Planning Board determines that the following types of applications will be handled in an expedited manner:" Lee, I'm going to read this. You jump in, if you have a comment, wherever you have a comment, okay? MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Anybody stop me where they want to stop. "I. SITE PLANS A) Applications for a change in use for Type II Permitted Uses in Recreation Commercial (Section 4.020-i), Plaza Còmmercial (Section 4.020-j), Highway Commercial (Section 4.020-k), Commercial Residential (Section 4.020-L), and Neighborhood Commercial (Section 4.020-M) Zones which do not involve any physical alterations to an existing structure on the site," MRS. YORK-Okay. You may want to put, "physical alteration to an existing structure or the site". MRS. PULVER-That's what it says. MRS. YORK-No. It says, on the site. MS. CORPUS-That was my original draft. That was a suggestion. MR. CAIMANO-Mine says, or. MR. LAPOINT-Mine says, or. I have the revised. MR. CARTIER-Oh, I'm sorry. I've got notes on my other photo copy. MR. LAPOINT-It's hand struck. MRS. YORK-Okay. I guess it's, really. semantics, whether you're talking physical alteration of the structure or physical alteration of the site or both. MR. CARTIER-Or both? MS. CORPUS-If I could clarify for the Board? MR. CARTIER-Sure, Karla. MS. CORPUS-What I originally meant, when I put, .Q!!.. the site. my original intention was to .Q!Ù..t address physical alteration of the building. However, with the change of the word "or", that would include a physical alteration to the building or some other part of the site. MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, parking, entrances, and that sort of thing? MS. CORPUS-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Alright, any other questions in that paragraph? Paragraph B. "Applications for aggregate expansions of nonconforming structures of less than 50% of gross floor area, which expansions are not located within a Critical Environmental Area," MRS. YORK-Okay, I would like to suggest that what you put should be, "are not located within or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area", and this wording would conform with the SEQRA Section 617.12B12. MR. CARTIER-Say that phrase, again. MR. CAIMANO-Substantially contiguous. MRS. YORK-Yes. I will give this complete documentation to Karla. Okay, just so the language would be the same as, conforming with the SEQRA Regulations. Also, I would suggest that, wherever you have "Type II Permitted Uses", that you insert "Site Plan Review", to make it read, "Type II Site Plan Review 26 '-../ Permitted Uses", so it is very clear to the public or anyone else who reads this, that the Planning Board has a prerogative, here. MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. Run that by me, again. Where are you? 11m lost. MR. CAIMANO-Where it says, "Type II", just add "Site Plan Review", right? MRS. YORK-Right. Okay, my first comment on the list. Pete. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-My only comment about your false tooth shattering "substantially contiguous" is that it's aWfully ambiguous. MS. CORPUS-I, also, have a concern with that. MR. CAIMANO-It's aWfully ambiguous. What is "substantially contiguous"? MRS. YORK-Okay, well, this is how the SEQRA Law is written. MR. CAIMANO-I agree. So, how can we tighten it up, so that you read, "substantially contiguous" as three feet, and I don't read it as 3.000 feet? MR. CARTIER-How about, stri ke the word, "substantially"? MR. CAIMANO-But then "contiguous" is not ambiguous. It means. there, next to it. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-That's what we want. MR. CAIMANO-Karla? MS. CORPUS-I don't have a problem with that. That's much clearer than "substantially contiguous". MR. CARTIER-I have a note to myself and I'm not sure what this means. One such expansion. only. will be allowed. without Site Plan Review. If they go to another expansion, they've got to go to the Zoning Board, don't they? MS. CORPUS-Only if the total aggregate is greater than 50 percent. MR. CARTIER-Well, this is the Jim Hagan situation, scenario. Somebody comes in with a 25 percent expansion and then they come back and get a 27 percent expansion and how do we avoid that? MR. CAIMANO-By allowing only the first one. MRS. YORK-Well, I think the law is written so that it indicates that you have to judge the expansion by the original size of the structure. excluding any expansions. MR. CAIMANO-But that's not his question. The question is, I don't care if it's two percent. Now he comes for three percent, two months down the road, and then six percent, further down the road. What Peter is saying, the Jim Hagan school of thought is, that people keeping coming back, and coming back. and coming back, and that should be taken into consideration, in this. MS. CORPUS-If I might suggest to the Board, there are some things that will be worked on, at the Town Board meeting, for Zoning Ordinance Changes, and it appears that that might be one of those areas where it's actually the Zoning Ordinance. itself, that might have to be altered, because, as it's written, now, there is not a prevention for which Mr. Chairman has just brought up before you. MR. CARTIER-Well, what I'm saying, here, is, if we get a second expansion, regardless of the percentage, it comes out of the expedited process. MR. CAIMANO-That's all we're talking about. MS. CORPUS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Because that's the point where we get a handle on this, in front of a full hearing, and say, okay. Do you understand what I'm saying? I know I'm not saying it very clearly. MS. CORPUS-There may be cases where that's true. There's also, further down in the resolution, provisions for bringing these particular items out of the expedited matters process. regardless of the particular circumstance. 27 '-..- ..- MR. CARTIER-I understand, and I think that's good, but I think we ought to flag it, here, somehow, too. MRS. YORK-What kind of language are you suggesting? MR. MARTIN-I would say, applications for first time expansions. MR. CAIMANO-There you go. MR. CARTIER-That would do it. MR. MARTIN-Rather than "aggregate". MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Alright. MR. CARTIER-Okay, good, that's an easy solution. Okay, anything else on lB.? lC. "Type II Permitted Use applications for lots in commercial subdivisions, which subdivisions have previously been approved by the Town of Queensbury Planning Board." We are talking about, do we run afoul. no, we're going to do a SEQRA on that, anyway. Okay, we're talking about the John Hughes Subdivision kind of situation, where he's got commercial subdivisions. MR. CAIMANO-Lee wants to add the words "Site Plan Review", I think, though, next to Type II, again, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. Everywhere that occurs. Also. I would like to suggest that we might put a comma after "Queensbury Planning Board", and add, "and for whi ch no modi fi cati on to the ori gi na 1 approval and fi 1 ed plat is intended". So, that it's very clear that there will be no modifications. MR. CARTIER-Good point, unless they come back for Site Plan Review, good point. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Again, John Hughes scenario. Okay. Item D. "Application for residential duplexes in those zones where they are a permitted use" MRS. YORK-For your consideration, I was going to suggest, "Applications for residential duplexes in zones where they are a permitted Site Plan Review use". MR. CARTIER-Okay. Good. Okay. Roman Numeral Two, SUBDIVISIONS, A. "Any two (2) lot subdivision, where the density in the zone would not allow further subdivision of the parcel, and no new roadways or infrastructure are proposed, and which is not located", would and make it a little better? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-"And which is not located within or", do you want to get into the contiguous issues, here, too, or do we need to? MR. CAIMANO-I think we should. Why not? We did it, before. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I agree with "contiguous", on that one. . MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, the phrasing was, "which is not located within a, or contiguous to, a Critical Environmental Area", that's on 2A, last line. MR. CAIMANO-Any others, Lee, to that? MRS. YORK-No, I didn't. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby modifies its method of reviewing and deciding the aforementioned types of applications as follows: 1. The Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury shall notify the relevant applicants of their selection and inclusion in the expedited process, including providing an explanation of the procedure," MRS. YORK-Okay, at some point, I'm not sure this is where you want to add it. but it may be. I would like to have added the criteria by which the Planning Department will make these determinations and what items they will use to make these determinations, so that everyone has the background information which welre working from. These would include, but not be limited to, the Planning Department Resource Maps, Town of Queensbury Zoning Law, Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Subdivision Regulations, DEC Freshwater Wetlands Maps, Flood Plane Maps, and concerns from other Department Heads, raised at Staff Review. 28 ~ ..- MR. CARTIER-I think that should be its own Number One. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-How about lA? MR. CARTIER-Well, it's not really a lA and IB deal. They're not the same issue. They're different issues. So, why don't we just kick everything up a number. MR. CAIMANO-It's an explanation as to why and how they get into the expedited process, is it not? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MRS. YORK-It really is. MR. CARTIER-Okay, lA and lB. Okay, so that becomes lA. What is 1, is IB, right? MR. CAIMANO-No. One starts, "The Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury, etc.". A of that is what Lee, or A, B, C, D, E, F, G, is what Lee is adding as the criteria. MRS. YORK-Alright. The criteria will be A, and then the notice of relevant applicants will be B. MR. CAIMANO-B. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "2. The Planning Department shall visit each appropriate site, review the application and issue a written report to the Planning Board. recommending approval or disapproval and citing their reasons, for every project whi ch fall s wi thi n the expedi ted process," MRS. YORK-Okay. what we would like to add here is. "recommending approval or disapproval, or a full Planning Board Review", and I think. instead of "disapproval", that's, most likely, what we would be suggesting, "a full Planning Board Review". MR. CARTIER-In other words, drop the disapproval? MRS. YORK-Well, that is entirely up to you. I don't feel that the Department has the right to disapprove an action. I feel only this Board does. MR. CARTIER-I agree. That's a good point. You either recommend approval or Site Plan Review. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Do you want "Full Site Plan Review", or just "Site Plan Review"? MR. CARTIER-Or normal Site Plan Review, or unexpedited Site Plan Review. MRS. YORK-Or, I put "Full Planning Board Review". MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-I don't know how you want to word that. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, lets do that. "Full Planning Board Review". MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item 3. "All projects to be included as expedited matters shall be included on the Planning Board Meeting Agenda under a new category entitled "Expedited Calendar". I don't like that. I think that should be "the first item of New Business". I don't like the idea of creating a third category on the agenda and, frankly, I think this should become, this "expedited action" should become one of the eight items we consider, per meeting. MR. CAIMANO-I think so, too. MR. CARTIER-Because we're trading off, potentially, five, we're losing one, but we may pick up, who knows how many items, in the expedited review. MS. CORPUS-If I might just interject, at this moment, Mr. Chairman. Right now, the agenda control will cover the number of items on there. There won't be an increase, at this particular point, without some amendment to the Agenda Control Law. The number of items or Site Plans on the agenda will remain the same. 29 '-- -.../ MR. CARTIER-One of which will be a package of expedited items. MS. CORPUS-Thatls one way to handle it, if the Board wishes to do so. My original thought, when I spoke with Paul, was to make each particular Site Plan or item a separate thing on the calendar, so that when you had the expedited calendar, you had one, two, three, four, however many, and the rest of the calendar taken up by regular items on the agenda. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, but that kind of defeats what we're trying to do, here, in terms of speeding things up. I'm thinking of a package of expedited items as one agenda item. Well, wait a minute now. Let me think about that, because we're separating Site Plans and Subdivisions. MS. CORPUS-Correct. MR. CAIMANO-In essence, what happens is. the member of the Planning Department. who's on duty that night, would have this package and they would say to us, as part of our new process. we recommend the approval of the following Site Plans, and she or he would read off those Site Plans and then we would so move, second it, and pass it on, that's the end of it. MR. CARTIER-Open a public hearing. and do a SEQRA Review on the entire package. _ MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-And then the motion. MR. CAIMANO-Right, but that's the way I see it. So, it would one item agenda. no? MS. CORPUS-Thatls a possibility. I'd have to look into whether we would need to, also, amend the Agenda Control Law, under that. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MS. CORPUS-I would definitely have to check that out. The only possibility for a problem, I see, is if, somewhere along the line, unbeknownst. ahead of time. a full review is needed by anyone of those one items, and I've made provisions. in here, to take it out of that expedited and put it at the end of the Board meeting. Therefore, you've added X number of extra items, possibly. MR. CAIMANO-But the people who are doing that are the same people who are expediting. So. they would know that, and be able to put the agenda together, right? MS. CORPUS-Possibly, except that we might not know how much public controversy there might be, to show up, that night, any other concerns that might just happen, unforeseen, at a meeting. which I know the Board has experienced that, at times. DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-That was my question. What if you have objections. because it is a public hearing? MS. CORPUS-Right, and there may be objections from the public, or, mainly from the public, for the public hearing. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay, objections or comments. Maybe this is the place to throw this in, here, but what I would like to do, also, is, prior to the meeting, we layout, on the table out in the hallway, copies of each of these expedited things, for people to look at. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Otherwise, I don't like the idea of sitting here, looking at a package of stuff that people out there haven't had a chance to look at. MRS. PULVER-Well, won't they still have Staff Review, and the notes will be in the packet that they pick up. MR. CAIMANO-That's already done. MRS. YORK-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's what I mean, but it can be under "Expedited" and six papers. together. MR. CARTIER-If I understand how we're going to do this. we're not going to be throwing up blue prints on the easel for every single one of these. We're going to introduce them, you're going to describe them, welre going to Staff Notes and a recommendation that we approve those as a package, unless we want to pull each one out of a package and look at it. 30 ~' -- MRS. YORK-Well, you still have to open and close a public hearing. MS. CORPU$-I would recommend opening and closing public hearings for each individual item. MRS. YORK-Yes, you would still want to do that, and then you would find out if there was any controversy and whether, perhaps, it should be reviewed further. MR. CARTIER-But my point in having them out there is, people may be able to answer some questions, by looking at those things, out there, rather than somebody in the audience say, wait a minute. want to see that. Tell me what that's about. MRS. YORK-Okay. If one of the Board members would like to give me their packets, sometimes all we have left in our office is the file copy. MR. CARTIER-Yes, fine. I was going to drop them off. myself, on the way in. MRS. YORK-Instead of recycling. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. MR. CAIMANO-I don't think we've gained anything. What did we gain? MR. CARTIER-What do you mean? MR. CAIMANO-If we're going to take each one of these things, open each one of them up to a public hearing, what have we gained? MR. CARTIER-I think, by law. we have to. MRS. YORK-Yes, but I guess you may have shortened the time span the Board meets. MR. CAIMANO-But the Planning Department is going to treat this like every other Site Plan Review, from their standpoint, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Now it comes to the Planning Board, there's nine of them, just for the sake of argument. We're going to open up each one of the nine, that's ridiculous. MRS. YORK-Well, you see, the problem, here, Nick, is that you have to, by law. have a public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-I'm not saying don't have a public hearing, but what's wrong with. as long as the public is aware. The public is not going to be dumb. If someone is going to show up to complain about something, they're going to complain about it. They're not going to sit out there and say. oops, gee, there's one of those things, in the middle of that packet, I'm going to complain about that. They already know they're going to complain about it, so what's wrong with showing up with the three or four, you've already approved them, and the Chairman opens the meeting and says, we are now opening the public hearing for all of these Site Plan Reviews, all of you have received a copy of this. If you haven't received a copy, I'm going to give it to you now. The public hearing is now open, for all of them. MS. CORPUS-I see an evidenciary problem, in that. the people coming to speak before the Board may not come in order, you may have some. MR. CAIMANO-Well, let's assume something, though. Let's assume that one of them comes up. Let's say there's three, and Dave Kenny, he says, I don't like that one number, that second one. MR. CARTIER-There's a way to do that. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, there is. Why don't we just drop that out, for full review, and approve the other two. MR. CARTIER-When you open, no, here's what I would suggest. When you open the public hearing. you start the public hearing by saying, is there anybody who wishes to comment on the first item in the package, yes, no. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Is there anybody who wishes to comment on the second item in the package. yes, no, okay, and take them that way. MR. CAIMANO-Okay, that sounds good to me. 31 '---- "--,,,' MR. CARTIER-Does that do it? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. I just don't want to break it apart, otherwise we're defeating the purpose. MS. CORPUS-Thatls fine. You can all the public hearings and specifically take each one, at one time, and saying, okay, there's none for that, and move on, and then close that, that's fine. MR. CARTIER-Right. One major public hearing, with subpublic hearings. MS. CORPUS-Would the Board like that put in, somehow. in this resolution? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Peter, the questi on I have for you is, do you really want to put down, on the agenda, the term "Expedited Calendar", and the reason that comes up is, somebody made an innocent comment, one time, about moving the item along, it was on an accelerated program, and I just don't want the audience to get the idea that, somehow, there's somebody special, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay, point well made. What's a more appropriate, "Expedited Agenda". where does that phrase first show up? MR. CAIMANO-Number Three. MR. CARTIER-Under Three, "under a new category", no, well, we're going to stri ke Three. MR. CAIMANO-We are? MR. CARTIER-If we agree that we're going to make this the first item of New Business. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we strike all of Three. MR. CAIMANO-I don't want to hide anything. I just don't want the public to get the wrong perception. MR. CARTIER-Or, instead of striking all of Three, "All projects to be included as expedited matters shall be included on the Planning Board Meeting Agenda as the first item of New Business". Will that do it? MR. CAIMANO-Fine. MR. CARTIER-So, we go down to Item 4, "All matter's". MRS. PULVER-"placed on the first item of New Business". MR. CARTIER-"on this first item of New Business". Okay, does that do that? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Alright. MRS. YORK-For your consideration, a comment Staff had was, "all matters placed on this first item of New Business will be heard, considered, and decided, after the approval of minutes of the previous Planning Board meetings and before the reviewing of Old Business". MR. CAIMANO-Well, I think that's redundant. MRS. PULVER-No. MRS. YORK-No? You want to handle it as the first item of New Business. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Because it is New Business. MRS. YORK-Alright. MR. CARTIER-Okay, Item 5. Well, excuse me, just let me back up. That last line. under Number 4 Comment, does that go with Number 4, expeditables? MR. CAIMANO-Where's expeditables? I don't even have that. MR. CARTIER-Right here? 32 ~ --' MRS. YORK-Okay. thatls in your current Rules and Procedures, just don't worry about it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-You've already decided that. MR. CARTIER-Item 5, "The Planning Board shall consider these Expedited Matters and comply with any public hearing requirements of Town Law, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. In doing so, the Chairman will advise the applicant that his/her comments are unnecessary, unless the project is recommended for disapproval by the Planning Department". Wait a minute, we said that the Planning Department was not going to disapprove. MS. CORPUS-Right, that would have to be altered, then. MR. CARTIER-Say that, again. MS. CORPUS-That particular item would have to be altered, then, given that the Board has just changed the previous. MRS. PULVER-Recommended by the Planning Department for Site Plan Review. MR. CARTIER-So. we dropped "for disapproval by the Planning Department". MRS. PULVER-Unless the project is recommended by the Planning Department. MR. CARTIER-For further. MRS. YORK-For full Board review. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-For further review by the Planning Board, either way. It doesn't matter to me. MS. CORPUS-If I might just interject, Mr. Chairman, for a second. I was thinking about the words, "full Board review". I'm not sure that it would be wise put the words "full", in that, it might imply that the other matters, these matters are not getting full Board review. MR. CAIMANO-You're right. MRS. YORK-Yes, that's true. MS. CORPUS-I do see a problem with that. There might be some implication. by the applicant or by the members of the public that. for some reason, these expedited matters are not receiving the full review, and they are receiving full review. MR. CAIMANO-What's wrong with the word, "normal"? MR. CARTIER-Normal? MRS. YORK-For Site Plan Review. MS. CORPUS-Further? MR. CARTIER-Further Board review. MR. CAIMANO-I agree with you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Do we want to say, "the Planning Board shall consider the", do we want to use expedited, at all? MR. CARTIER-Where are you? MRS. PULVER-Number Five. MR. CARTIER-"shall consider these Expedited Matters and comply". MRS. PULVER-We've been calling it the first item of New Business. So, "The Planning Board shall consider this new item of business"? 33 ~ MR. CARTIER-Will be handled in an expedited matter, lets see. MR. CAIMANO-Well, itls getting awkward, now. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-I believe we could refer to them as Expedited Matters, internally, here, and, with their category on the agenda being the first item of Business. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I see what you're saying, alright. MS. CORPUS-And I have one more recommendation for Number 5. Down at the last two sentences on that page, two lines, part of that, "are unnecessary, unless the project is recommended for disapproval", I would replace "Planning Department", since the Board took that out in the previous paragraph, change that maybe, "recolllllended for disapproval by the Board", because there is a chance that the Board, even though it's got an Expedited Matter before it, might recommend disapproval, and that would require further discussion. MR. CARTIER-Unless the project is recommended for disapproval by the Planning Board, or recommended for further review. MS. CORPUS-Further review by the Planning Department, then. MRS. PULVER-At that point, the Planning Department is recommending review by the Planning Board, and then they wouldn't be an Expedited Matter, right? MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. MARTIN-Not unless the project is recommended for Site Plan Review. MR. CAIMANO-Really, if this plan goes into Site Plan Review at this point, is what you Ire saying. MRS. PULVER-If the Planning Department doesn't like it, it doesn't become expedited. MS. CORPUS-Right, but if the Board, after even hearing the Staff Notes and whatever comments, might be leaning towards disapproval, at that particular time. and that would require further review. MR. CARTIER-Or. we might say, we don't know enough, we want to take a closer look at this. MS. CORPUS-Tabling. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so we're up to, "In those cases". MR. CAIMANO-"Unless the project is recommended for disapproval by the Planning Board". is that what you're saying? MRS. YORK-Karla, maybe you could read the language you want, to us. MS. CORPUS-Okay. "in doing so, the Chainnan will advise the applicant that his or her cOlllllents are unnecessary, unless the project is", it would be easier if you put, "recommended for further review by the Planning Department". MR. CARTIER-No. MR. CAIMANO-The Planning Department's out of it. MR. CARTIER-The Planning Department's already said no. It doesn't need that. Here's the scenario, we look at it, and we say, wait a minute, we need some more infonnation, here. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Why can't you just take out everything? "Unless the project is recommended for further review by the Planning Board". MR. CARTIER-Right. MS. CORPUS-Okay. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-I think that does it. "In those cases, the applications are taken out of the "Expedited Matters" category and placed at the end of the New Business agenda". 34 -- MS. CORPUS-We could just strike. "taken out of the Expedited Matters category", and leave, "placed at the end of the night's agenda". MR. CARTIER-So, it will read, then, "In those cases, the applications will be placed". MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. CARTIER-"at the end of the New Business agenda", rather than "night's agenda", okay. "for handling and consideration as is accorded all other matters on the agenda". Item 6, "After opening and closing the public hearing for those expedited applications to be approved, the Chainnan of the Planning Board will ask the Board members", do I have to read this? Any changes on Item 6? Item 7 lets read. "After passage of the aforementioned resolutions, the Board shall entertain one approval resolution for all expedited site plan applications. and another for all expedited subdivision applications". So, actually, if we have a mixed bag of some site plans and some subdivisions that are on the expedited, we're going to deal with them separately? MS. CORPUS-I was thinking there would be separate SEQRA considerations for subdivisions, versus site plans, and our Department, if the Board so chooses, will come up with a generic. more or less, SEQRA resolution for each type, if you'd like. MR. CARTIER-That sounds good. Great. MR. CAIMANO-Can I go back to 5, just for a second. It seems like you've discussed how you're going to handle the opening and closing of public hearing, and now this has changed the whole thing. You're not going to handle it the way you said. We are going to go back, essentially. to the way 1 said it. "The Planning Board shall consider these Expedited Matters and comply with any public hearing requirements of the Town Law, the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. In doing so, the Chairman will advise the applicant that his or her comments are unnecessary", by the way, I think we should change it to "their", "comments are unnecessary, unless the project is recommended for review by the Planning Board." Okay. so now we have, if it's not been recommended for review by the Planning Board, it's okay, we're going to approve it, but now we have one that is recommended for review by the Planning Board and we say, "In those cases", where it is recommended for review. the applications are taken out of the Expedited Matters, or however you're going to word that, and placed at the end of the New Business agenda. So, we have a vehicle for taking care of the public hearings, and there it is, right there. We can, in fact, pass everything, unless the Board has to review it, and in that case, it goes at the end of the agenda, anyway. MR. CARTIER-I see what you're saying. Yes, we pullout the one thatls subject... MS. CORPUS-We'll have the separate public hearing, at that time. MR. CAIMANO-It's already taken care of. MR. CARTIER-Right. MS. CORPUS-I see that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, "Be It Further Resolved, that the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to develop and implement new short form applications for expedited site plan and subdivision applications", and we can't do that, because how does Staff know whether they can expedite an item unless they have the full application filled out. MS. CORPUS-I agree with you, Mr. Chainnan. Paul wanted that. I didn't like it. MR. CARTIER-So. what we really need to do is drop that whole thing. MR. CAIMANO-Starting where? MR. MARTIN-Be it further. MRS. PULVER-Be it further resolved. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, just, resolved. "Be it further", applies to the next resolve. MRS. PULVER-Well, there's also another, yes, "Be it further". MR. MARTIN-So, from "Resolved", the whole thing. MR. CARTIER-So. in other words, we get rid of the first resolve. MR. MARTIN-Yes. 35 '- -- MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-"And finally, Resolved that the aforementioned procedure for considering and deciding expedited matters shall be implemented as soon as possible by further resolution of the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury or by amendment to the Rules and Regulations adopted by the Planning Board." Well. what we have to do is we have to see a final version of this, now. and when we have a final version, we can act on it. MS. CORPUS-Right. I will be discussing with Paul, because, basically, we didn't know which way to go, just resolution, or amendment to the Rules and Regulations, and now, possibly, even an amendment to the Agenda Control Law, depending on how that's effected, but we needed your input, tonight, and if anyone comes up with anything else, in the meantime, feel free to contact our office and we'll be happy to implement anything, or if you have any questions or need anymore information. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions on that? A bunch of odds and ends, here. Really quick. John Hughes, did everybody get a copy of the letter I sent to him? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. He is submitting a revised subdivision, a modification to his subdivision approval, and he's going to try to get that in with Lot 2, and do it all at once. I think that this is something to think about. We have a meeting scheduled for December 25th. I want to change that. MRS. PULVER-Our regular meeting is the 18th, in December? MR. CARTIER-The 18th and the 25th. So, think about when you'd rather do that, after December 25th or before, and we want to let Staff know a month ahead of time, on that. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Acting Chairman 36 · - ~ '-'" TOWN OF QUEENSBURY P1anni~g Department -NOTE TO FILE- Mrs. Lee A. York, Senior Planner Mr. John S. Goralski, Planner Mr. Stuart G. Baker, Assistant Planner Date: November 5, 1990 By: Lee A. York Ana VariaDce Use VariaDce - Sip VariaDce - Interpretation Subdi'rision: Sketch, Site P1an ReYÏew -:-- -X- Petition for a Change of Zone - Freshwater Wet1aDda Permit Pre1imiDary, Final Other: AppJication Number: PI 0-9 0 AppJicant'. Name: Pyramid Company of Glens Falls (Aviation Mall) November 5, 1990 MeetiDg Date: ............................................................................................ CREA TION OF THE ESC-2.5A ZONE The Planning Board is requested to make a recommendation regarding the creation of a new zone. This zone would be for Enclosed Shopping Centers located on 2.5 acres or more. The Board may wish to first consider the necessity for creation of this zone. When the rezoning effort took place three years ago, the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Land Use Plan did not address the need for this zone. Therefore, the Zoning Ordinance does not contain a definition of an enclosed mall as differentiated from a plaza. The Board may wish to consider whether the cUlTent Plaza Commercial zone is appropriate for an enclosed mall or whether a new zone is needed. The purpose of the Plaza Commercial Zone, as stated in our present zoning (Section 4.02.0j) is: Plaza Commercial Zones (PC-IA) are those areas where intense commercial development exists or is anticipated. Access points are defined in an effort to create coherent and safe traffic patterns, efficient loading and unloading aesthetically pleasing shopping environment and safe pedestrian circulation, and under Type II uses (number 19) Shopping Malls and Plazas are allowed. 1 . -----------.." _.. -- --- The proposed definition for the ESC-25A zone is: Purpose: Enclosed Shopping Centers (ESC) are those areas where development exists or is anticipated. Access points are defined in an effort to create coherent and safe traffic patterns, efficient loading and unloading, aesthetically pleasing shopping environment and safe pedestrian circulation. The Maximum Density under PC-IA is: At least one (1) acre will be required to establish any allowable use in a PC Zone, up to 12.,000 S.F. of gross floor area for single story buildings and 15,000 S.F. for multistory buildings. An additional 500 S.F. of land area will be required for each 150 gross floor area, for single-story buildings and 200 S.F. or proportion thereof for multistory buildings. The Maximum Density under ESC-25A as cUlTently proposed is: At least twenty-five (25) acres will be required to establish any allowable use in a ESC Zone, up to 12,000 S.F. of gross leasable floor area for single story buildings and 15,000 S.F. for multistory buildings. An additional 500 S.F. of land area will be required for each 150 gross floor leasable area, for single-story buildings and 200 S.F. or proportion thereof for multistory buildings. The purpose of the PC zone and the ESC proposed zone seem to be very similar. The densities, exclusive of the required acreage, are the same. The proposed zone has a permitted use being an Enclosed Shopping Center but then states under Site Plan Review that all uses will be subject to Site Plan Review. If this is adopted, the Planning Board may wish to make sure that it is written so as to be consistent with the Town's existing Ordinance. There seem to be some major differences between the proposed zone and the PC-IA zone that the Planning Board may wish to consider. One is the change in percent of lot to be permeable. This changes from 30 percent in PC-IA to 20 percent in ESC-:-25A. The Board may want to consider the ramifications of this with regard to the potential for greenspace and blacktop on a 25 acre parcel. The CUlTent Zoning Ordinance does not have a zone that allows for less than 30 percent permeable area. A major difference that the Board may wish to evaluate is in calculation of gross leasable area. The CUlTent Ordinance (definition 97B) uses the "Total area in square feet within the exterior walls of a building or structure and when applicable the sum total of all floor areas of the principal and accessory buildings or structures under single ownership or business." The proposal for ESC states that Common Mall area, exit conidors, service areas, storage and maintenance areas, elevators, escalators or other common or public places are excluded. 2 , ----.--- -.- .-- '-' -- .. The BOard may wish to discuss how this proposed variation would change the way parking requirements are calculated (Refer to Section 7.07lB). CUlTently, parking is calculated using the sum of the horizontal areas within the exterior walls, excluding basement or attic areas used primarily for storage. The proposal as presently written eliminates any calculation for parking of the food court areas and central (common) areas which mayor may not contain a retail business. The Board may wish to decide what areas need to be identified for "tenant occupancy". The cUlTent enclosed mall appears to have tenant occupancy in the common mall areas. The Board may wish to require a definition of common or public areas. Another change relating to parking standards is the change from the 10 by 2.0 foot cUlTent standard to spaces 9 by 2.0.· Please note that there is also a change in language in the proposed zone which allows enclosed shopping centers and industrial uses to use this proposed standard while residential and commercial uses (except enclosed shopping centers) are required to meet the 10 by 2.0 foot standard. The Board may decide for either plan or come up with alternate suggestions. Other differences the Board may wish to consider: The Off Street Parking Design standard is proposed to be modified in the ESC 2.5A Zone to provide divided planters for each 150 cars. The cUlTent standard requires planted dividers for every 100 cars. . The parking standards (Section 7.012.) are proposed to be modified for the ESC-2.5A Zone so that parking will be calculated at 5.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area rather than the CUlTent standard of 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The proposed ESC-2.5A zone intends to modify the "Off Street Loading" criteria to allow three (3) off street loading spaces for each department store. tenant plus centralized loading spaces for the interior tenants. The Board may wish to consider the wording which refers to "department store tenant", as the CUlTent mall or other malls that could fall under this criteria, could have tenants which are not department stores. After reviewing the proposed ESC-2.5A Zone, individual Planning Board members may have come up with additional standards/requirements/considerations that he/she would like the Planning Department to research, or may make these suggestions directly to the Town Board for its consideration. LA Y /sed 11-05-90 3