Loading...
1995-08-10 WKSH QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING WORKSHOP MEETING AUGUST 10, 1995 INDEX Site Plan No. 1-91 MODIFICATION Pyramid Company of Glens Falls 1. 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. '-- -../ '-- _/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING WORKSHOP MEETING AUGUST 10, 1995 3:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LABOMBARD J AI'1ES OBERMA YER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS MODIFICATION OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: ESC-25A APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION AT AVIATION MALL. THE EXPANSION WAS COMPLETED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AREA NOTED AS "STORE D" - 65,000 SF (GLA) LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE OLD PENNEY'S STORE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE 14,000 SF (GLA) OF STORE "D" TO THE FRONT OF THE MALL BETWEEN THE EXISTING FOOD COURT AND THE FRONT CENTRAL ENTRANCE. STORE "D" WILL REMAIN IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION BUT BE SHORTENED TO REDUCE GLA TO 51,000 SF . TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. NACE-My name's Tom Nace, with representing the Pyramid Company. Jim Associates, also representing Pyramid, and Piazzola, representing Pyramid. Haanen Engineering, Miller, with Miller Mike Saltsman and Mike MR. PALING-Okay. Now I think that Staff, you had comments on this. Do you want to make those first, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I can make a couple of comments. It isn't really a major change. I have some minor comments. Probably the most important one being, they're proposing to place a compactor and what appears to be a couple of dumpsters, although they're not labeled, in the front of the Mall. If they are dumpsters, and it appeared like the compact area is screened by a wall, if these are dumpsters, they're also going to require screening. MIKE PIAZZOLA MR. PIAZZOLA-That's the (lost word) fault. What I did here was I got the tenant's layout through the fax machine and sent it off to the engineer. That is a truck. MR. PALING-What is a truck, this one? MR. PIAZZOLA-Yes, and what that is, is the compactor being lifted overhead. The little blocks is the cab in the front, and the long box is the body of the truck. That issue can be laid to rest, because I should have taken that off the print. MR. PIAZZOLA-This is the truck, and that's the compactor, and that's the cab of the truck, and when I spoke to the architect for this company, I said, you must be from New York City, because what they do down there is they have a fork that comes off the front of the truck and lifts the compactor overhead and dumps the compactor in the back of the truck. So that's the head of the - 1 - ~' -- -- truck and this is the body. We'll take that off. MR. GORALSKI-That's going to be a stockade fence around the compactor? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. GORALSKI-In the rear, where Store "D" constructed, in these new curbed islands, it this is hatched that you're calling them islands? We'd like to see them landscaped. will be eventually appears that the way to be just grassed MR. NACE-Okay. What we've done here, okay, since this has sort of come in stages, the parking is laid out so that you can see that once this, the reason I don't have any landscaping back here at all, okay, is that we're looking at that as a future, next generation, after we've done up here, okay. I laid the parking out and the islands out to show that we could maintain the required green area and maintain the required parking spaces. The intent is go ahead and construct the front, okay, and then once there are specific tenant plans for Building "D", come back with this layout, if necessary, revised, plus showing landscaping for Building "D", okay. In the interim, we would keep the parking on the pad that's there, okay, which is more than what's here and more than what's required. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. What about the area that now looks like it's still under construction? You've got an area back here. MR. NACE-I've got the existing survey plan. MR. STARK-That's all grassed, isn't it? MIKE SALTSMAN MR. SALTSMAN-Yes. It's all been hydroseeded. MR. STARK-You're talking behind CVS, the hill? MR. SALTSMAN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-All right. mentioned to me. That was just another issue that Jim MR. PIAZZOLA-What we'd like to do is keep that the way it is, because there's 140 parking spaces. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. NACE-Yes. The idea is to keep this looking the way it looks now, until they have specific (lost words), and then we would go to at least this parking layout, plus give you landscaping and whatever other details you need. MR. GORALSKI-So what you're saying is, when you come in with a tenant for parcel 0)- Store "D", you're going to come back to the Planning Boafd and firm up this area in the back? MR. NACE-We can do that, whichever way, that's what ~ had discussed. MR. GORALSKI-It's up to the Board. with that. If they don't have a problem MR. MACEWAN-Is there a tenant planned for Parcel "D" right now, something in the real near future or are we looking one, two, three years down the road? MR. PIAZZOLA-One of the beauties of cutting up this box, if you will, is that the tenants that we're talking to right now, for - 2 - '-' --,' -- --../ that fourth department store, are all in the 50,000 square foot range. 65,000 square feet just seems too big for the tenants that want to be in this market. So, there's two or three 50,000 square foot tenants that we're talking with right now, and those are like '96 or '97 deals, and that's going to have to happen. It's too late now to start construction on a department store for a 1995 opening. So that would be, the earliest would be the spring of '96, and probably the latest would be the spring of '97. MR. MACEWAN-Just so I have this clear, then, the reason why you don't want to landscape this portion of it is anticipation of making another addition onto this portion, or is it just like an access for construction site~ MR. PIAZZOLA-It's as it is now, and we don't expect, because we're locked into a GLA number, from a site plan perspective, that we're going to be able to go back and add another 10,000 feet on that, because we're maxed out now. By moving 14,000 feet from this 65,000 square feet pad, we're just moving the boxes around, but we don't have site plan approval, and Tom will tell you, we don't have the parking to add another 10,000 feet to this site. MR. MACEWAN-Why can't that be landscaped, then? That's what I don't understand. What I don't understand is, what are you going to dig it up for if you're not going to expand any portion of the Ma 1.1 ? MR. NACE-For construction, to get, you know, to build Store "D", it's partly renovation and partly addition, and to do this addition, you need more than just this little roadway in front to have access for construction and lay down materials, etc. So the idea was to keep it as it is now, with actually the parking much more accessible to the existing store fronts, okay, and then when you're ready to build for "D", you would also have that additional area there for lay down and construction, and you do your final parking, bringing the parking on in and the final islands and the access road around that, as soon as your exterior is finished. MR. GORALSKI-I don't have a problem with that if the Board, I would just think that the Board would want to see a final landscaping plan when they come in with Store "D". I mean, go ahead now the way it is, and then when they, if it's going to change from what's here, you're going to want to see that change, I assume. MR. NACE-Yes. The real reason I laid this out was simply to show that we're taking away some parking up here. We're taking away a little green space up here to show that we could still meet with, the footprint back here, we could still meet the requirements. MR. PALING-Now you say "meet the requirements". You're talking permeability? MR. NACE-Permeability, the green space, and the parking, are the t,,~o pr imsry . MR. PALING-And it's right up, marginal, if you will, or borderline. MR. NACE-Well, if you look at the statistics, we have. MR. PALING-It remains at 21. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. There are two issues that we'd just like to bring up now. One is now you've kind of cut off, on the west side, those parking spaces along the retaining wall. You cut them in half and put a line there. From what we've seen, those - 3 - parking spaces have never been used. I don't know what the feeling is about it, but we thought, you know, if you're not going to use them, black them out, line that loop road so it's properly lined, so that people know where they're going. It seems like people are half on the parking spaces, half in the lane. If you're not going to use them, it appears that you'd have plenty of parking. Lets line that road correctly so it's a safe way. MR. BREWER-Does that cause need for a variance or anything? Because I would agree with that statement. I tried every possible way I could, last year, to go around that road, and there's just no way you can go down that road without coming across a parking place. I mean, I suppose if cars were then, then you'd have to, but. MR. GORALSKI-Well, they have the space for the parking. They've demonstrated here that they have enough room to provide the parking they're required to have. It's my opinion that there's plenty of parking, and I'd rather have a safe circulation pattern, since those parking spaces are never used anyway. MR. BREWER-I would agree. MR. STARK-We can't do that. They have to go to the ZBA and get a variance, because they'd be required less number of parking spots per square foot, you know? MR. GORALSKI-No, because they have demonstrated similar to, in the past, what you've said is you can leave parking in reserve and just show that you have that parking. This would be the same thing, where they've shown that they can provide the adequate number of parking spaces, but that would be in reserve in the future, if there ever was a problem with parking, they could go back and line that property. MR. RUEL-So a variance would not be required. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. Nobody does park there. I've never seen anybody over there. Even on a crowded rainy day, up at the lake, nobody's parking there. MR. BREWER-We did the same exact thing with the Olive Garden plaza. I don't know if anybody here was involved with that, but we made them show, you were on the Board then, George, remember we showed them the parking in the back, where Red Lobster is. MR. STARK-Yes. It's fine. Would you rather do that, Mike, not even have parking? MR. PIAZZOLA-I wish Tim and I could have had this discussion two years ago, but the only issue I see, and obviously from an engineering and land planning standpoint, we can handle that parking on the side, and I understand where you're going with this. Our only issue would be the Department Store on that side of the Mall has a lot of control over what we do on the site. I think we could work with them. My preference would be to take those spaces out and just find the center line of that drive lane and then put a double yellow line down there, and then you've got plenty of room on both sides, for circulation, as a safety issue as much as anything else, and I think we can make a case, the only condition would be that we're going to have to talk them into it, but I think if it comes from the Town, if that's what you want, then that's what you'll get. MR. PALING-Are you going to end up with an pavement that has no markings on it, that'll that what, if I'm visualizing this right? isolated piece of just be th('3re, is - 4 - '--' ',,--, -.-/ MR. GORALSKI-Well, what it would be is that, what I'm suggesting is that they take, see where these parking spaces are, and you've got this area between the islands and the wall and the slope. Basically, eliminate these parking spaces and put the double yellow line down the center here, because what's happening is, if you go out there and you sit there, what people do is they're driving along the parking spaces now, okay. So lets just eliminate them and make it a roadway around there. MR. RUEL-How far would you extend that? Here to here? MR. PIAZZOLA-I think it's an issue between the back of the Penney's building and this. Because the way the road twists and turns in here, I think people are losing their way. I would recommend, and it's obviously your decision, to end it right here, leave these in place. I'm sure, eventually, maybe at Christmas time, they might get some use. MR. RUEL-And leave these in place? MR. PIAZZOLA-Right, and leave those in place. corner right in here. This is a tough MR. NACE-Where they come across, you'll have to transition at the end, you'll have to taper it. MR. RUEL-What's the width between the island and the (lost word) roughly? MR. STARK-It's 20 and 20, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-That's what the minimum is supposed to be. It should be 40 feet, which is fine. MR. RUEL-And would you put a line in the middle? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. MR. PIAZZOLA-This is going to be half, three quarters of an inch. So you're talking about 75 feet from the end of the island to the (lost word). MR. BREWER-Well, the parking space is 20 feet, right? And you've got 12 for each travel, 24 and 20 is 44. So you'd have 22 foot on each side. You've got to take away 12 inches for the lines. MR. RUEL-I definitely would be in favor of doing that, eliminating the line in the middle, and then put a note to indicate that these spaces are available for future parking, if need be. MR. PALING-And the double yellow line, you're saying they're available, I think you're eliminating parking spaces. MR. GORALSKI-You're eliminating those parking spaces at this point. They have the land area to provide it, if they, you know, if it becomes an issue. MR. RUEL-I wouldn't put a double line. I'd put a single line, because people might think they can't cross it. MR. PALING-I'm in favor of doing it the way it's explained, but I just think all these spaces are being a little (lost word). MR. GORALSKI-Okay. The only other issue that came up is we've been approached by the people from Burger King. Recently there was an Ordinance passed that if you had adjoining commercial properties, you had to provide connection between those properties, and they've asked if they could have a connection between your lower parking lot there and the back of their - 5 - parking lot. MR. PIAZZOLA-And we've been discussing that with Burger King for a while now, and the issue with connection affects our parking, and because parking spaces from a five per thousand, which is your Town requirement for the Town, is such a sensitive one, and we're so close to being under that five per thousand, that would affect between, you know, four and six parking spaces, and how much are we over now? MR. NACE-Five. MR. PIAZZOLA-Five. So we're, you know, we're right at the limit, and our position with Burger King is if you can think of a way to do this, without affecting our parking, which is near and dear to our hearts because parking equals income, then we'll be glad to do it, but right now, where they want to make the connection is going to affect parking. MR. BREWER-Where do they want to make the connection, Mike? MR. NACE-Are they at the same grade? MR. GORALSKI-It's not outrageous. It's doable. MR. MACEWAN-Did they come up with a plan to this corner down here, to add some more spots in that corner down there and let them foot the bill for you? MR. PIAZZOLA-If they can do that, obviously, that would be our preference to do. MR. MACEWAN-You could probably pick up four or five more spots there if you pulled that corner out a little bit. MR. GORALSKI-Well, you're open to working with them. MR. PIAZZOLA-We are open to working with them. Again, direction to me from the owners was, we're very close on parking as it is, and we would want to be able to maintain our five zero relationship, because of our Town requirements, lender requirements and department store requirements are all the same number. MR. BREWER-And that would come back to us anyway, if they do that, right, or at least you or Jim? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I guess what ~ would recommend is that if the Board agrees with possibly doing that, that you make part of your resolution that if it can be worked out between Pyramid and Burger King, and Jim, or however you want to word it, then we do it. There's no point in it coming back to you just for that. MR. BREWER-As long as somebody in this Department looks at it, that's fine with me, Jim or. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. STARK-It makes sense, people don't have to go out, and you know what people would do then, go from Burger King to the road, wait for the light, then they'd take a left. MR. MACEWAN-We've been striving to do that. That's the marching orders we got from the Transportation Council. MR. STARK-You can't get out of Burger King and take a left. It's very, very hard. MR. BREWER-Lets have them do it. - 6 - -- ~;Y MR. NACE-Well, it's supposed to be illegal. MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it's supposed to be. MR. BREWER-Mike, if you can get with Burger King and get with Jim or John or whatever, and see if you can work something out. MR. MACEWAN-I'd prefer to have him with John's rubber stamp of approval, because he's the one who's going to actually have hands on. MR. BREWER-That's fine with me. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. So those were the only issues we had. MR. MACEWAN-The plantings okay with you? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. All the plantings out front looked fine. MR. BREWER-Now the $50 question. Who's the tenant? MR. PALING-Maybe I'm being too alone, but I want to see a site get together. That's fine. personally, would like to see a negative on the thing, I'll stand plan, if Burger King and the Mall I'm sure I'd approve it, but I, site plan review. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's necessary. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. PIAZZOLA-Site Plan review for the Burger King connection? MR. PALING-Yes. We're talking not only a connection. We're talking circulation in both lots, and numbers of parking spaces, and I think that might be a little bit too much. MR. MACEWAN-But as long as they're going to be picking up the four or five parking they'd need to have by losing of a driveway, and John's going to have his hands on it, what's the problem? MR. STARK-Have you ever seen anybody park down there besides a few employees? Nobody. On the busiest day nobody parks down there. MR. MACEWAN-That's the most significant parking I've seen down there all summer. MR. RUEL-I was wondering if there's any liability requirement, should Pyramid allow Burger King to have a driveway in your area? MR. PIAZZOLA-We probably would have to work with their insurance company as well as ours. There's probably a way to bond both of us over, either add them to our liability policy, or they would probably add us to their liability policy. MR. MACEWAN-It's a very common Town. MR. STARK-Bob, I think if you think it's necessary for them thing. Just uncommon in this polled the Board, you know, I don't to come back here. MR. PALING-No, no. I stand alone on it. that's the way I feel. I just wanted to say MR. STARK-Why don't we make a motion and include that in the motion. MR. BREWER-We have a public hearing on this. - 7 - '- MR. MACEWAN-No. This is a modification of an existing site plan. MR. GORALSKI-Just so it's on the record, Staff would recommend that you consider this a modification, not significant enough to change the SEQRA review, not significant enough to require another public hearing. MR. RUEL-You now have two entrances, one new entrance next to the existing one. Is that correct? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Yes. MR. NACE-Into the building, you mean? . MR. RUEL-Yes, a new entrance. There is one there, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RUEL-And you're going to have another one here? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. RUEL-Two entrances? JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Yes. Right here, now, there's a little planter out in the front, that would come out and they would renovate and have a new entrance come in off this entry plaza right here. MR. RUEL-Yes. This has a canopy, right? MR. MILLER-Yes, this right here. MR. RUEL-This doesn't, right? MR. MILLER-No. Inside, though, inside there's like a big foyer, so you come inside. MR. RUEL-Double doors on it? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now, here, this is used for trucks, also, or just customers? MR. PIAZZOLA-That's going to be used for trucks. MR. RUEL-How does a truck get in and out of here? MR. MILLER-Well, they would have to pull up into the parking island and back in. MR. RUEL-Isn't that kind of dangerous, right here in the parking lot, right up front? Where's the loading, on both sides? MR. MILLER-In the back. MR. NACE-That's anticipated as an off hours delivery. MR. MACEWAN-And they wouldn't stick out in the drive aisle. They'd be well planted back in there. MR. MILLER-It would be back in here. Well, this is what they put in for a truck, so that's a garbage truck, but a tractor trailer, they had one on the drawing, and it came out to 70 something. MR. RUEL-What goes in the new 14,000 area stores, or just additional space inside? - 8 - '--' ---- ~- ,-' MR. PIAZZOLA-This, up to about this point, it contemplated to be one new tenant, which is requiring that we give them outside identity, facing Aviation Road, as well as a new store entrance, and because of the sensitivity of the negotiation with some tenants inside the Mall, that we have to get control of, we're not at liberty to, right now, to discuss who that tenant is, and those negotiations are proceeding. As a matter of fact, they're sending someone, one of the same people, up here Monday to decide whether this is going to be a '95 or '96 store opening. We're, obviously, pushing for '95, and then there's another tenant here, from the loading dock down, which is requiring an outside entrance as well, which is another major national retail firm that wants to be in this market, never been here before, that we're negotiating with right now. So we've got two big impact tenants. This tenants about 30,000 feet. This one's about 15,000 feet, which would really add something to this Mall. MR. RUEL-So this entrance would be essentially? MR. PIAZZOLA-Just for that store. MR. RUEL-Now, you're going to have new plantings? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-On one of your notes, you've indicated that you have planting data for final inspection. That's for the original? The date should be changed or extended for the new plantings? MR. MILLER-That was just, that's a standard guarantee, one year guarantee note. MR. RUEL-That's fine, but I want the same guarantee on the new plantings. MR. MILLER-Well, that's what it referred to. MR. RUEL-The spring of '951 I think you better change your date. MR. BREWER-Well, when do you anticipate these stores to open? MR. SALTSMAN-If all goes well, this one that we're talking about this afternoon would open the first week of December of 1995, and the other one that Mike's negotiating with would open probably March of '96, just because of the construction. MR. BREWER-And there's no way he can put plantings in before? MR. MACEWAN-I would wait until the spring. MR. MILLER-I think we probably ought to just take that date out and we could guarantee. MR. MACEWAN-The best laid of construction plans, especially when it's fall, winter of this year. MR. RUEL-AII right. You had a drywell over here somewhere, right, and so that's closed uP. and you've put a new one here? MR. NACE-Correct. This was an area drain that picked up the truck (lost word). This all drains out, sheet flows out. This is just for this area right here. This all sheet flows. The drywell was back here. There was a little depressed area back in here. MR. RUEL-This was the existing wall? MR. NACE-Yes. It's right in here. I was pointing in the wrong area. - 9 - "-- - MR. PIAZZOLA-This used to be Northeast Savings. existing. So this is MR. RUEL-So the drywell must have been over here? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. PIAZZOLA-We're adding this section here, this piece here, just tying in Northeast Savings to this addition. MR. PALING-Okay, Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Board? Okay. I think motion. Any other comments or questions by the we're to that point we can entertain a MR. RUEL-You had a couple of conditions, right? MR. PALING-I'll say in advance that I'm in favor of just about the whole thing, with the exception of the access to Burger King. So I will vote against the motion, only for that reason. So, I'll entertain a motion. MR. MACEWAN-Have you got it written down what you want to do? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-91 PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS FOR MODIFICATION, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel With the elimination of parking around the west road, back as far as the Penney's building, west of the loop road, contingent upon the client's ability to negotiate that with their tenants. The new plantings to be installed by June 30, 1996. That the internalization between Burger King and the Pyramid Mall be approved by a member of the Queensbury Planning Department Staff, contingent upon agreement between Burger King and Pyramid. Duly adopted this 10th day of August, 1995, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-What about the condition of the elimination of parking spots here. MR. STARK-Okay. With the elimination of parking around the west road, back as far as the Penney's building. MR. NACE-You might want to make that contingent permissibility to negotiate that with their tenants. upon MR. STARK-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-He gave us an indication he didn't think a problem if it was a directive from the Town. So soon leave it that way, if that's what we want to do. upon, but eliminate that west side parking. it would be I'd just as Contingent MR. BREWER-Lets make it specific, though, the west most parking. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. BREWER-Because you don't want them to eliminate all of this. You want it just around this road. MR. NACE-Exterior to the loop road. MR. GORALSKI-Exterior to the loop road. - 10 - '-. -- "\:.-.. I' ...... MR. STARK-West of the loop road. That's pretty specific. Back as far as the Penney's building. The new plantings to be installed spring of '96, when you get to them. MR. BREWER-How about a date? MR. STARK-By June 30th of '96. Okay, and then third, that the internalization between Burger King and the Pyramid Mall be approved by a member of the Queensbury Planning Department. MR. MACEWAN-The Code Enforcement Officer. MR. STARK-Well, I don't know if he'd be doing it or not. He didn't know. Would you be doing it, or Jim? MR. GORALSKI-It would be Jim or I, one of us. MR. RUEL-Make it to Staff. MR. STARK-The Staff, the Queensbury Planning Staff. MR. BREWER-Contingent upon agreement between Burger King and Pyramid. MR. STARK-I said that. MR. RUEL-I'll second that. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer, ~r. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Paling ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Obermayer On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 11 -