Loading...
1996-04-23 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1996 INDEX Site Plan No. 11-96 (Cont'd Pg. 8) John McCall - Tire & Brake Dist., Inc. Tax Map No. 113-1-6 1. Site Plan No. 13-96 Michael Chrys Tax Map No. 6-1-2 1. Site Plan No. 14-96 Tax Map No. 41-1-25 Alfred E. Kristensen Mary Ellen Kristensen 3 . Site Plan No. 10-96 Dr. Joseph G. Guerra Tax Map No. 16-1-32 11. Site Plan No. 15-96 Firstlove Christian Fellowship Tax Map No. 117-10-6 16. Subdivision No. 3-1996 Berkshire - Queensbury L.L.C. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 130-3-18 26. Site Plan No. 8-96 DISCUSSION ITEM Berkshire Acquisition 32. 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 4/23/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX AND PRATT - JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-96 TYPE II JOHN MCCALL - TIRE & BRAKE DIST., INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 15 BOULEVARD THE PROPOSAL CONSISTS OF THE REMOVAL OF A DETACHED 4,000 SQ. FT. MASONRY AND FRAME BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING ADDITION TO REMAINING 5,000 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING, IMPROVED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. THE NEW ADDITION CONSISTS OF OFFICES AND SERVICE BAYS. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1328, AV 7-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/11/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 113-1-6 LOT SIZE: .72 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 MRS. LABOMBARD-The public hearing on March 26" 1996 was tabled, and it will continue tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. This whole thing was tabled and we'll continue it tonight. I just wanted to check one thing. Okay. Go ahead. MR. HILTON-Well, if I may, the applicant is here. The applicant's agent isn't. I understand he's stuck in a thunderstorm at this point, and the applicant is actually asking if he could be tabled right now and brought up later in the meeting. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. We'll just put it off. We don't have to table it, I don't think. We'll just put it aside. We'll put it at the end for right now. All right. Now, the next one was scheduled to be for Michael Chrys, but this was taken off the agenda because it was tabled by the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, some people have come up that are interested in commenting on this. So I guess we're going to accept their comments, and I guess I can open the public hearing and leave it open. No. Wait a minute. This is not a public hearing. It can't be. We're just going to take your comments that you would like to make about this and then ask that you be sure to come back to the next meeting, when it's scheduled, and talk again. JEAN AUSTIN MRS. AUSTIN-Now, we were told that this was going to be for tomorrow night? MR. PALING-No. There is no schedule for it to come before the Planning Board. - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. HILTON-Tomorrow night is the continuation of the item before the Zoning Board. MR. PALING-Before the Zoning Board? Okay. MR. HILTON-They're still, you know, hearing his application for an Area Variance to move the dock, and that will be decided upon tomorrow night. MR. PALING-All right, but this is not an actual public hearing, but if anyone would want to comment on Site Plan No. 13-96 Michael Chrys can do so now. MRS. AUSTIN-Okay. Jean Austin, and my father is Leonard Hoy. He owns the property that the dock is in front of. We were told, he got the notice. I didn't. He's not capable of coming here. We were told that the proposal was to move the total dock to the property line. I don't know if this is true or not, but this boathouse and these docks are 30 years old, approximately 30 years old. My feeling is, I mean, the dock in front of our place, all the cribs and everything are all rotten. I mean, they need work now. My question is, if he attempts to move this 30 year old dock and it collapses, falls apart, does he consider this an existing structure where he can re-build it where it is, or does he have to, I mean, we feel if it's going to be moved, we don't want it on the property line. We want it according to Code. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. AUSTIN-Because if it's moved, then we have to apply for a dock, and we'll have to be according to Code. MR. PALING-We wouldn't necessarily reply to your specific question. We'd rather take the input. We'd take your comments and we'd reply, you know, through our decision. MRS. AUSTIN-Right. So my main question is, if it's moved, if the Zoning Board approves to let him move that, and that collapses, what recourse does he have at that time. Is it considered an existing structure and he can re-build it the same way it is now but not on the part that's in front of our land, and if it is moved, we'd want it according to Code. That's our comments. If it had been set according to Code 30 years ago, we wouldn't have a problem now. That's actually all we really have to comment. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MRS. AUSTIN-Thank you. MR. PALING-Would anyone else like to comment on this? All right. Then I guess we've received the public comment, and they are part of the record, and I have your card, and you will be notified about that. MRS. AUSTIN-Now, will another letter go out telling when the next meeting is? MR. FRIEDLAND-The public hearing has been scheduled for tonight? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. FRIEDLAND-And it's been tabled, hasn't been opened. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-No. The public hearing has not been opened. This - 2 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) matter was tabled by the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but who withdrew the application from the Planning Board? MR. STARK-The applicant. MR. PALING-The applicant. MR. MACEWAN-The applicant's got to go through everything allover again, doesn't he? MR. FRIEDLAND-If they withdrew the application from tonight, yes. If they did that then I would agree, they'd have to start over again. MR. PALING-All right, then they've got to 'start from scratch. Okay, and I'll make sure that you're notified. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 14-96 TYPE II ALFRED E. KRISTENSEN MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN OWNERS: SAME ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: FITZGERALD ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A WALK-IN CLOSET ADDITION TO A PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO (2) CAR GARAGE. PER SECTION 179-79, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 14-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 41-1-25 LOT SIZE: .689 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Alfred E. Kristensen Mary Ellen Kristensen, Meeting Date: April 23, 1996 "Staff has reviewed Site Plan 14-96 and has the following comments. The applicant is seeking site plan approval for a new garage and 10 foot by 12 foot closet addition. The applicant has received the appropriate setback variances for these additions from the ZBA. The proposed drainage system for stormwater runoff for these additions is adequate. The applicant shows four new lots on the submitted plan with new additional area at the rear of each lot. This new area and lot configuration has to be recognized and reflected on the Tax Map's for the Town of Queensbury. Staff would offer a stipulation that before any building permit is issued for the closet or garage a plat be filed and recorded at the Warren County register of deeds." MR. PALING-Okay. Now we do have a disapproval on this from Warren County Planning Board. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-I think all the Board members are aware of that. MR. MACEWAN-How did four new lots get created on this without subdivision? MR. HILTON-There was a merger that took place, and the ZBA acted on the merger, and that was actually for the three more easterly lots. The one on the west is just shown on the plan, but wasn't a part of the initial application, but because they are including some area there at the back, that little strip, our position is we'd like to see that filed at the Register of Deeds. MR. MACEWAN-So they didn't need to go through the subdivision process? MR. HILTON-No. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here from the applicant? MR. O'CONNOR-Michael O'Connor, from the firm of Little & O'Connor. KURTIS DYBAS MR. DYBAS-My name is Kurtis Dybas. MR. PALING-I have a couple of questions to start off with, I think will set ll§ straight on this. Is the print I have at all to scale? MR. DYAS-Yes, it is. MR. PALING-Now the distance between the existing residence, I'm looking at the lot that's the second one from the left, as the one that's the subject tonight. MR. HILTON-We're looking at the one farthest to the right. MR. PALING-The one on the right. Okay. This is the lot. I was up there and stood there with the print, and they said, yes, this is the one. MR. RUEL-Well, he had a new garage and a closet addition on it. MR. PALING-Yes, but pointing out. Okay. it different from mY or questions? the closet is shown on the one that you're That answers a lot of questions. That makes standpoint. Okay. Anyone have any comments MR. RUEL-The Zoning Board has granted a variance for the setback? MR. PALING-That's right. MR. RUEL-And Warren County feels that it's too small of a lot to have that size of a footprint, I guess. MR. PALING-Yes. There's not a lot of detail. I'll just read it. "This is one of the smaller lots on Glen Lake, with a rather large development occurring on it. The issues being density and the cumulative impacts in a Critical Environmental Area, that being Glen Lake. II MR. RUEL-Yes. Are they talking about this one lot, or all of them? MR. PALING-Well, I think they're talking about the one lot plus the area. MR. RUEL-It's not clear to me whether they're talking about all of the lots or just the one lot with the addition. MR. DYBAS-They are talking about the lot that is the farthest to the right on your sheet, the one that identifies the new garage. MR. RUEL-Yes. They're talking about this one. MR. DYBAS-That particular parcel. MR. O'CONNOR-We went for the Area Variance a couple of months ago, and we went to the County Planning Board at that time. They recommended the configuration of the lots the way that we have them, with the square footages the way we have them. They took no action at that time on the variance request for the setbacks for the closet and the garage. They didn't have sufficient votes to go one way or the other. This last time when we went back, I'm not sure what their, you really can't discuss your application with - 4 - ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) them, and they, first of all, denied it because they had denied the request for an Area Variance before, and I did get to talk to the Staff member up there and said they didn't deny it before, and they looked back and said, you're right, we didn't deny it before. So they withdrew that motion, all looked at each other and said, we still recommend that we deny it. So, we're running into a little bit of (lost words) there that I just can't explain. We're taking down and 18 by 18 foot shed or 22 foot shed and replacing it with a two car garage, and we're talking about a 10 foot addition. We'd meet all the permeability requirements before and after these two small additions to this lot. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Staff. On these lots, or in this particular zone, do we have, in an Ordinance, a ratio between house and lot? MR. HILTON-Right now we just have our permeability standards. MR. RUEL-That's it? MR. HILTON-That's it. MR. RUEL-There's no other ratio? MR. HILTON-The permeability, the height requirements, and setbacks. They've received variances for the setbacks. Their permeability is, they're still within the Ordinance requirements, and the height of the structures are also within the Ordinance requirements. MR. RUEL-And so if it's a small lot and you put a very large lot it's okay, as long as it meets the permeability requirements? MR. HILTON-Right now. are potentially new adopted in May. That's subject to change in May with, there laws for floor area ratios that could be MR. RUEL-Yes, because I think the Master Plan will be covering, will go further than just permeability, and will be on the basis of ratio between square foot of the house and the square foot of the lot. MR. HILTON-Of the lot. MR. PALING-That's right. MR. HILTON-That's the plan right now. MR. RUEL-AII right, but it doesn't apply right now. MR. HILTON-Not right now. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments at this moment? MR. STARK-Height of the closet, is this going to blend in to the roof line that's there? MR. DYBAS-We're going to extend the existing roof line right out over the closet. MR. STARK-Height of the garage? MR. DYBAS-Less than 14 feet above the driving surface. MR. STARK-Fine. - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. PALING-There's a public hearing on this matter. So why don't we open the public hearing now. I think we're done with comments at the moment. Is there anyone that would care to address this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other questions or comments? Then, lets see. We have a Type II here. Are we exempt on this one? MR. HILTON-It's a Type II Action, no further action. MR. PALING-We don't have to do anything. All right. Then we can go right to a motion then. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-96 ALFRED E. KRISTENSEN MARY ELLEN KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To construct a walk-in closet addition to a pre-existing structure and construct a new two car garage, and to make sure that the plat is filed with Warren County to reflect the new lot sizes. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-I have just a question. (Lost word) we add the portions of the map that you have with the deeds that we actually recorded. If you'll notice the map that you have here, this is a plot plan of it, with the addition of those back parcels, and we can photo copy parts of them, and we are going to do deeds between the various parties and we will convey the first lot and describe it, with the meets and bounds description, and in accordance with the Tax Map. MR. HILTON-I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here. MR. MACEWAN-You're just saying that you're going to add an addendum to the small additional parcel with the deed that you plan on filing? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We've already recorded a map for the strip, and the tax people will pick it up. They will separate it as far as the deed. The first deed is on the far left is going to be, and Dr. and Mrs. Kristensen claim that the next deed is going to be under the four children Kristensen's name, and the next few deeds will vary. MR. HILTON-And now what you're saying is that, lets take the lot to the left, there would be two separate deeds for that one piece of property? MR. O'CONNOR-The source of title can be, in all honesty, treated, we can do a lot, the source of title can be treated, we've got a deed from Johnsons and a deed from Valentes, and we have a deed that we're going to obtain from Maynard. You can attach the plot plan to the back of the deed as part of your Schedule A, and I will attach each portion to the deed. Is that satisfactory? MR. HILTON-Well, I guess what I'm looking for is something that indicates that these four lots will be shown as four individual lots, not the two broken up separate pieces. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. They'll be shown as four, it'll be shown as - 6 - -....-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) four separate deeds, but it'll be shown as four separate lots. MR. HILTON-That seems okay with me. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. MacEwan started to touch on it earlier. What we took was pre-existing prior lots, and we adjusted'boundary lines, and then got approval from the Zoning Board to do that. We don't really have a subdivision, per se. We started to reflect five lots there and ended up with three lots in the Kristensen part and now we're buying an additional lot from Maynard. So the way to do it is the way that I suggested to you, just so you understand. MR. HILTON-Well, ultimately, I guess, if we have a map that is filed at Warren County to indicate the total area of all these four lots, and that gets filed and recorded. MR. O'CONNOR-It will be done on an individual basis for all lots. MR. MACEWAN-George, if it's not done correctly, it'll bounce back to you anyway. MR. PALING-Yes. We have to rely completely on what both of you say on this. MR. FRIEDLAND-There won't be anyone lot showing four lots. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think (lost words). I don't think they'll take it without going through the Planning Board. I can find out if they will. MR. HILTON-Even though it's not a subdivision, per se, it's just a merger. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I can see if they will take it. If they will take it, I have no objection to doing it, but I don't want to create another process of application that I've got to go through. MR. PALING-No. I don't blame you for that. MR. O'CONNOR-That's the only other way I can do it. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. preferable way. I think that if they'll take it, that's the MR. O'CONNOR-I will I will add to the encompass the front individual parcels. do it if they will take it, but if they won't, sketch of the meets and bounds which will part and the back part of each of the four MR. PALING-If this bounces, there's nothing we can do about it, but it sounds fine. Okay. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. HILTON-If the Planning Board wishes, here, and we could hear them right now entirely possible. Mr. McCall's agent is if you'd like. It's MR. PALING-Okay. We'll go back to the first one. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-96 TYPE II JOHN MCCALL - TIRE & BRAKE DIST., - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 15 BOULEVARD THE PROPOSAL CONSISTS OF THE REMOVAL OF A DETACHED 4,000 SQ. FT. MASONRY AND FRAME BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING ADDITION TO REMAINING 5,000 SQ. FT. METAL BUILDING, IMPROVED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING. THE NEW ADDITION CONSISTS OF OFFICES AND SERVICE BAYS. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1328, AV 7-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/11/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 113-1-6 LOT SIZE: .72 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 AL MUGRACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN MCCALL, PRESENT MR. MCCALL-I'm John McCall. Distributor. I'm the owner of the Tire & Brake MR. MUGRACE-I'm Albert Mugrace, the architect for John McCall. MR. PALING-All right. This was tabled last time, and it has an Area Variance to it, that's been approved. We have Beautification comments, County comments and Staff comments. George, if you'd care to enlighten us. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-96, John McCall - Tire & Brake Dist., Inc., Meeting Date: April 23, 1996 "Staff has reviewed the revised site plan and has the following comments. As previously discussed, staff would recommend that the landscaping scheme be revised so that less yews and junipers be used at the front property line. In place of these plantings an additional honey locust could be provided at the west side of the front property line. An additional honey locust would be more hardy and would be better suited to the plowing and salting of the adjacent road. The septic information provided appears to be in compliance with the requirements of the Town Code." MR. HILTON-The Board and Staff were all talking about an addition to be placed also attached to the building. If you look to the left where it says, "proposed addition", I had initially thought that we were looking for an island to be placed out at the property line, and a little planter to be placed along the building. Right now, with the size of the lane that's there, at 30 feet, depending on the Board, what they want to see there, I wouldn't be, I mean, if they did not provide a planter right attached to the building, that would probably improve their access and their drive width in front of the building. MR. PALING-I agree. I don't think they need a planter. MR. HILTON-I feel pretty comfortable with what's been submitted. My only thought is that, on the west side of the property, which is the right side of the page, the applicant indicates a 5 by 12 planter with some junipers. If the applicant were to maybe remove those and put a more hardy honey locust tree in there that could survive the salt and plowing of that street, that would be the only thing we'd be looking for, at this point, and the septic information that's been provided is acceptable. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-The planting schedule would have to change on the plan, right? MR. HILTON-Right, and we could approve that and have, I believe you have. MR. MUGRACE-I have some revised drawings. - 8 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. PALING-You have another set besides what we have here? MR. MUGRACE-Yes. We received a fax from Mr. Martin yesterday, and we did make the corrections that you talked about. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. Would it be appropriate to put it up on the Board and talk to us about it? MR. MUGRACE-Sure. MR. STARK-Okay. He changed a tree here. MR. HILTON-The only comment I would have on this is it appears that on the west side of the property they've trimmed back the five by twelve planter to be somewhat less of an island. That would be something that. MRS. LABOMBARD-They trimmed it back too much, George? MR. HILTON-Well, I think it still works. I think the Board has to decide here whether that's acceptable to them. MR. PALING-Trimmed back from what? MRS. LABOMBARD-It looks to me like there's a, I don't understand, there looks like there's a curve therè now. MR. MUGRACE-Yes. MR. HILTON-Right, where before it wasn't. MR. RUEL-Is that where the sign is? MR. PALING-You're saying it was a wider planter before? Yes. It was nearly 50 feet before. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. We came out quite a ways on that. MR. HILTON-It came out a little bit farther, in the plan that we had re-submitted to us. MR. RUEL-George, was that your recommendation there, honey locusts in that corner? MR. MUGRACE-We're talking about two planters, basically. One in front of the proposed addition, which is going to be 5 by 50, with two honey locusts and various junipers and yews. Now this planter is basically consisting of a (lost words) and we're going to be installing some topsoil and some seeding as well. Over on the west side, right here, we original proposed, a 5 by 12, if I'm not mistaken, planter was proposed for there, with some junipers and yews again, planted there. Yesterday, upon discussing the introduction of honey locusts with Mr. George Martin, we modified that area somewhat so that we could get a little bit better (lost word) space here, and what we did, we elongated that, almost like an L-shaped planter there, instead of a long rectangular lot, which is going to interfere, I think, more with the traffic function. This would give us a better circulation pattern, and we feel proposing to install a tree there, honey locust and somewhat green space. It's now approximately eight feet. It's more of a triangular shape now, which is probably, area wise, would amount to probably a five by twelve. MR. PALING-Okay, and you agree to change to honey locusts and all of the planters there, the ones that are street side. - 9 - ...........~,........ ~ " .. ,.,.,.,,,,--<,,,,..,-~, ..,,_,".:..... ,.,..__'..- -·..··,·....,'t (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. MUGRACE-We have a honey locust in the front here, and one there. Now if you want to get rid of these junipers and yews, we have no problem with that. MR. HILTON - I think they're appropriate there, also, the honey locust, you have honey locust shown in that island. They'll survive. If you wish to put junipers there, that's fine, but with the two trees that are shown there, they probably have a better chance of surviving, and those trees are acceptable to Staff. MR. MACEWAN-The curbing that you have going around the entire perimeter of the parcel, separating the parking areas from the grass areas, what is that curbing made of? MR. MUGRACE-Well, we really haven't discussed this with the owner, but I was proposing this radius here, up to the first parking space, that would be concrete. Similarly, we're going to do the same thing on this side. MR. PALING-And it would be concrete also? MR. MUGRACE-It would be concrete for the first 10, 15 feet. MR. MACEWAN-And what's the rest of it going to be? MR. MUGRACE-The rest of it probably would probably be some type of an (lost word) type of thing. MR. MACEWAN-Could I convince you to do your planter in front, concrete as well, because those landscaping timbers won't last there very long. MR. MUGRACE-That's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. That would be a separate provision. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. We're trying to get more businesses to go along that, after lengthy discussions we've had on the Board, if you go back and look at a site plan, a year after the fact, there's timbers everywhere but where they're supposed to be. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good point. MR. PALING-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. MR. RUEL-All the Rist-Frost engineering comments have been answered, right? MR. PALING-They have been met, as I understand it, yes. MR. HILTON-Yes. All the other comments have been read into the record. My only comment would be, I guess I would ask the Board whether they're comfortable with this most recent submittal here or the one that we were looking at at the beginning of the meeting? MR. PALING-I don't have any trouble with the re-submittal, no. I don' t think the Board does. Do you have anything particular? They're going to change the tree, and they're going to go to concrete on the curbing. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-But they are changing the length and the configuration of that island to the west. MR. MUGRACE-We'll modify this slightly, so that we can better. - 10 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. PALING-But it gives him more of an opening, the way they're doing it. MR. HILTON-Okay. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. MR. PALING-All right. If there's no other comments or questions at the moment, the public hearing was tabled. We'll re-open it. Is there anyone here that wishes to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, where were we on this one? This is a Type II. So it, again, is exempt. We don't need a SEQRA on this. All right. Then we can go right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-96 JOHN MCCALL - TIRE & BRAKE DIST., INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For the removal of a detached 4,000 square foot masonry and frame building, construction of a 2,800 square foot metal building in addition to remaining 5,000 square foot metal building, improved parking and landscaping in accordance with the latest site plans dated 4/23/96. With the condition that all three planters be surrounded by concrete curbing. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NQES : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 10-96 TYPE II DR. JOSEPH G. GUERRA OWNERS: JOSEPH & ROSE GUERRA ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: SEELYE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 1,200 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOME TO UTILIZE SPACE FOR 2 BEDROOMS, A BATH AND STORAGE. PER SECTION 1 79 -79, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 3-93, AV 1042 AV 17-1996 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/13/96 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-32 LOT SIZE: .63 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 DR. JOSEPH G. GUERRA, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. George, the Area Variance was approved, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Because I have, it's tabled according to this, but that was approved. So we're okay there. MR. HILTON-Right. I have approval here on April 18, 1996. MR. RUEL-I have a question for you. Back in February 1993 it seems that we did the same thing. MR. HILTON-That was an outward expansion, going toward the property lines, I believe. This is an upward expansion. ROSE M. GUERRA MRS. GUERRA-I'm Rose M. Guerra. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) DR. GUERRA-I'm Dr. Joseph Guerra. MR. HILTON-I can't speak to the '93 expansion. Maybe the Guerras can. MRS. GUERRA-What's the question, first of all, about the ' 93 application? I don't understand. MR. RUEL-The question was, wasn't there a similar application back in February 1993? MRS. GUERRA-That is true, I believe, and yet there was, and we didn't do it because we had illness in the family. MR. RUEL-Okay. Now you're starting over again? MRS. GUERRA-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. DR. GUERRA-Also, we changed the design of the roof. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. George, do you have comments on this? MR. HILTON-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 10-96, Dr. Joseph Guerra, Meeting Date: April 23, 1996 "The applicant is proposing a second story expansion to his home on Seelye Road. This new addition will be 33 feet high which complies to the height requirements of the WR-1A district. Staff would recommend that some method of stormwater retention be shown on any plans that are submitted for a building permit. Some methods that would work in this situation are drywells or gutters." And if we have those on plans at the time of building permit, that would be acceptable. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Not necessarily at this time. MR. HILTON-Right, at the time of building permit. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments at the moment? MR. RUEL-What's the limit on height? MR. HILTON-Thirty-five feet. MR. PALING-Thirty-five, two feet under that. DR. GUERRA-Actually the height is 32 and a half feet. MR. RUEL-Thirty-two and a half. How come it's so tall. What have you got, three stories there, on one side? MR. GUERRA-No. The first story is the cellar. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. So on one side it's 33 something. On the other side it's 10 feet less. MRS. GUERRA-Yes. We go down into like a gully, and we're on sheer rock. DR. GUERRA-Twenty four and a half feet in the back. - 12 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. PALING-And thirty-two and a half in the front. MR. RUEL-I see. It's looking good. I'd like to see a picture of it like that. MR. PALING-Yes, have an elevation. He said that we always like to see an elevation, which you have provided two views of, and that's fine. MR. RUEL-Because most times we get a top view, and there's no way of knowing what the structure will look like. MR. PALING-All right. There's a public hearing on this. So if there's no questions or comments further at the moment, I'll open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to comment on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. comments? I'll ask one more time, any questions or MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. As far as, how many bathrooms will this make? MRS. GUERRA-It will make three. MRS. LABOMBARD-It will make three, and you're adding two bedrooms. So how many bedrooms are there already? MRS. GUERRA-There are four tiny bedrooms, one is smaller than nine by ten, is actually very small, which would be used for a closet. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I guess I'm working toward to make sure that the septic system is up to snuff. MRS. GUERRA-Actually, the bedrooms are so tiny, we have no closets, and if this is going to be our permanent home, we need storage and we need closets, and that's what it will be. MRS. LABOMBARD-So then it won't be a six bedroom home? MRS. GUERRA-Of course not. DR. GUERRA-It's going to end up being four bedrooms. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words, really what we're talking about is keeping, even though you're putting 1200 feet on, you're still going to call this, it will still be a four bedroom home? MRS. GUERRA-Absolutely. MRS. LABOMBARD-With two big closets? MRS. GUERRA-Storage. There's no storage in the house now. At all. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand. MR. PALING-Okay. DR. GUERRA-The only thing is, on the floor plan, I figured it up to be about 1500 for the square feet, rather than 1200. So, I don't know. MRS. GUERRA-And,that was approved at the variance. - 13 - (Queensbury Plannìng Board Meetìng 4/23/96) MR. HILTON-Rìght. The ZBA granted relìef and approved that amount of square footage. MR. RUEL-You want to change that to 1500? MR. HILTON-Fìfteen hundred ìs the new addìtìon. MR. RUEL-Yes, ìnstead of 1200, 1500. MR. PALING-Is what Roger asked for acceptable to you? DR. GUERRA-Yes. MR. RUEL-About the plan. DR. GUERRA-I don't know how good they're goìng to do, because ìf I drìve a rod down ìnto the ground, and only go down about two feet I'm on solìd rock. MRS. GUERRA-If they're acceptable. MR. HILTON-I'm just goìng to read dìrectly here from the resolutìon from the Zonìng Board whìch states that they were approvìng an addìtìonal 1,510 square feet. So that's what's been approved. MR. RUEL-1510. It's goìng up. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Roger's makìng the motìon, I stìll have some questìons. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. MRS. LABOMBARD-So how much total square footage do you have on thìs lot now? DR. GUERRA-It'll make a total area of 3,764. MR. RUEL-That's wrìtten ìn here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mìssed that. I mean, we were up there. We looked at ìt a long tìme ago, 3700 square feet on a lìttle over half an acre. MR. RUEL-3764. MRS. LABOMBARD-Three bathrooms, and everythìng meets engìneerìng specs wìth the bathrooms, the septìc system? May I just ask you how old the septìc system ìs? I'm just curìous. DR. GUERRA-We've been there sìnce about 1970. We have a real good septìc system. It goes from our septìc tank to a staìnless steel retaìnìng tank and ìt's pumped back up 40 yards up to, we never have any problems. MRS. LABOMBARD-So ìt's up to the back. It's pumped up to the back. We went over there so long ago. I should have probably looked at ìt a few days ago. DR. GUERRA-In '92, when they had a drawìng, they had the drawìng wrong. So I made a correctìon on thìs one. I revìsed the drawìng. MR. RUEL-The present zonìng ìs that septìc system ìs adequate unless ìt faìls wìth the addìtìon? MR. HILTON-Presently, I thìnk there's no way we could address the septìc system wìth the varìance. Those are proposed changes wìth the May publìc hearìngs, you know, concernìng floor area ratìos. - 14 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) Also the information we have indicates that the septic is functioning adequately. MR. RUEL-Okay. That's it then. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just want to make the comment, is that a hip roof that you're putting in there? MRS. GUERRA-It was a hip roof. Now we're putting a pitched roof. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm looking at it just reversed. the real rendering is the colored part. In other words, DR. GUERRA-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I see. All right. I was wondering what you were doing there for a second. MRS. GUERRA-It's very expensive right now. We have gables to keep the hip part from backing up, because we constantly have an ice back up, and we're getting water into the house. This is another reason we want to do this addition, to get rid of a partially flat roof. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I guess I like hip roofs. It's not a typical type, the one you have there. It's got two angles at the bottom. MRS. GUERRA-Actually, the way the roof is going to look is right under the (lost words) . MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, I see that. You've got a nice steep pitch, like a 12, 12. Yes, that's nice. DR. GUERRA-Actually, three sides of the house right now are the flat roof. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I guess my main concern was that on such a small parcel of land, so many hundred square feet. I just thought you were really soaking that piece of land to death. MR. RUEL-That's the same footprint. MRS. LABOMBARD-But it doesn't matter. We're still talking lots, three bathrooms. MRS. GUERRA-But we're not talking three full bathrooms. DR. GUERRA-Downstairs, it's a. MRS. GUERRA-Small half bath. MRS. LABOMBARD-I remember going out to it. It's very nice, and I just wanted to make my comments heard, and I'm sure that you probably are tested periodically. They come around and they do the little dye test now and then. MRS. GUERRA-Yes. We have our septic checked out. Every year we have Queensbury septic come and clean it out, which I can't say for our neighbors across the street, and that's the run off coming down that we have to put up with. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, the thing is, that's what X can't say for my neighbors on the lake, too. MRS. GUERRA-No, we're very conscientious. We're using the water. It's our home forever. MRS. LABOMBARD-Thank you and good luck. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MRS. GUERRA-Thanks. MR. PALING-If it were new construction, we'd say different, but this should be okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-96 DR. JOSEPH G. GUERRA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To construct a 1510 square foot second story addition to an existing single story home to utilize space for two bedrooms, a bath, and storage, with the condition that some method of stormwater retention, either drywells or gutters, be shown on plans that are submitted for a building permit, prior to a building permit. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 15-96 FIRSTLOVE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP OWNER: HAYES GROUP ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF SO. WESTERN AVE. AND PAUL STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT A WAREHOUSE (FORMERLY CHURCH) INTO A CHURCH. CHURCH IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE LI ZONE AND REQUIRES A USE VARIANCE. PER SECTION 179-26 ALL LAND USES IN LI ZONES WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 19-1996 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 4/8/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/10/96 TAX MAP NO. 117-10-6 LOT SIZE: 13,108.51 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-26 MICKY HAYES & MARK LEVACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay, and the Use Variance was obtained from the Zoning Board. MR. HILTON-Yes, on April 18. MR. RUEL-And it was rejected by Warren County. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. I was going to cover that. MR. HILTON-I will mention that, also. "Staff has reviewed Site Plan No. 15-96 and has the following comments. The seating capacity for the church needs to be stated in order to determine the amount of parking that is needed. The current parking layout shows a number of spaces that are not the required 9 feet wide." The applicant has just handed out plans which are in front of you which, they've corrected that problem, and the spaces they indicate are nine feet by twenty, the required dimension that's in the Ordinance. "This site plan needs to be revised to indicate that all parking spaces conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The parking lot is also required to have a 5 foot planted buffer to be located along property lines." However, in a situation like this where it's pre-existing condition, the applicant isn't required to provide that, and actually if they were to do that, the dimension of their drive lane would be reduced below the 20 foot width that is required in the Ordinance, and it is better for site circulation that the five foot planted buffer not be provided here. So we don't need the buffer. It's a light industrial area and also it's a pre-existing condition. "Staff would recommend that the front of the building be closed to traffic. This area could then be seeded and landscaped. This - 16 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) would have the positive effect of preventing cars from pulling directly off of Western Avenue and parking in front of the church." Although I'd like to see that, in speaking with the applicant, I don't think it's possible at this time, due to the right-of-way alignment of Western Avenue. I believe that the right-of-way comes right to the property line and the applicant would have to obtain proper permission from the City of Glens Falls to close up the front of the church and plant it. As a part of the Use Variance, one of the stipulations was that the applicant petition the responsible party for Western Avenue to have No Parking signs put up in front of the church. At this point, any planting that they're proposing on the other side of their property line I would make subject to approval by the City of Glens Falls, and I would also offer a stipulation that before a building permit can be issued, that they show that they have petitioned the City of Glens Falls for the No Parking signs. MR. MACEWAN-How does the City of Glens Falls fall into this? MR. HILTON-Because they maintain Western Avenue. border between Queensbury and Glens Falls. That is the MR. RUEL-The complete street? MR. HILTON-They maintain the entire street, is my understanding. MR. PALING-Well, you've got to clarify something else, too. When you say "close off". MR. HILTON-I meant that in front of the church building itself, if they were to remove concrete and create a planted island that were right in front of the church, they would have that green space and they would have just the aisle that goes around the church building. However, it may not be feasible to close that and create green space, due to the fact that cars could possibly drive on it and destroy whatever plantings are there. MR. PALING-Well, if they limited the grass, as I'm looking on this print, to the foot of the steps, does that give you, would you think differently? MR. HILTON-I wouldn't think differently because of what the City of Glens Falls, what jurisdiction they have there. If they don't want the pavement ripped up because they're afraid that cars are going to trample over the plantings, or that it's just not something they want to see on their property. MR. PALING-That space is too narrow to drive cars in and back out, as far as I'm concerned. The distance to the street just isn't enough. MR. MACEWAN-I can't grasp where you're coming from with this thing about the City of Glens Falls having. MR. HILTON-They maintain the road. They maintain Western Avenue. MR. MACEWAN-Is that some sort of legal arrangement with the Town of Queensbury, or is that just kind of like, they've been doing it for years kind of thing, and that's the way it is? MR. HILTON-Well, I think as the responsible party, being the City of Glens Falls who maintains that road. MR. MACEWAN-I would differ with you on that opinion. MR. RUEL-We didn't have that with Cool Beans. MR. MACEWAN-As having my business on Western Avenue, I can tell - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) you, unequivocally, it's a Town of Queensbury truck that always maintains that side of the road. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, then I would probably state that the responsible party who maintains that street, be it the Town of Queensbury or the City of Glens Falls, any approvals would have to be sought from that, from the City or the Town. MR. RUEL-According to Naylor, Queensbury takes care of the Queensbury side of Western Avenue, and Glens Falls takes care of the other side. That came up on the Cool Bean site plan. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. PALING-Lets cut to the meat here. What is it you're recommending they do to the front of the building? MR. HILTON-I'm recommending that if they are showing any planting within the right-of-way that they receive the proper permission from the entity responsible for maintaining that side of Western Avenue, and proof also be demonstrated that they have petitioned for no parking signs to be placed in front of the building. MR. RUEL-When you say in front of the building, you mean parallel to the road, in front of the building? How many cars can they put there, one, two? MR. HILTON-It's my understanding that in the past people have pulled in front of that building off of Western Avenue and just parked right on Western Avenue in front of the building. MR. RUEL-It could block your driveway, in other words? MR. HILTON-Well, the idea is, also, to just eliminate people pulling directly off the road and right in front of the building. We're trying to get them to park in the parking lot, and not eventually back off into Western Avenue. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We have it that any plantings will be approved by the appropriate authority, and that No Parking signs will do the same thing, will be approved by, whether it's Queensbury or Glens Falls. It's got to go to whoever's responsible. MR. HILTON-Right. They have to petition for No Parking signs before a building permit can be issued. MR. RUEL-Do we normally have to request permission on plantings from the borough, from the Queensbury Town? MR. HILTON-When they're in the street right-of-way, or off the property owner's property, I think they have to seek some type of permission. MR. RUEL-It's not their property? MR. STARK-George, excuse me, Rog. Where did you come up with this? We never required this for Cool Beans down the street 100 yards. MR. HILTON-I can't speak to Cool Beans. All I can say is that if you look at the site plan, they show their property line. I don't think you can require, correct me if I'm wrong, someone to go into a right-of-way owned by a municipality and have them plant it without the muncipality's permission, or at least some say so on how it looks, and that's all I'm asking. MR. MACEWAN-You're right. In this scenario, the municipality that governs it, though, would be the Town of Queensbury, not the City - 18 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) of Glens Falls. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, that's fine, the responsible municipality. MR. PALING-All right. Does anybody have any problem with that? The responsible municipality will be contacted. MR. RUEL-The only problem 1 have is that it seems like this is a new requirement. Most homes in town have their lawns and they have shrubbery and everything else on the right-of-way, and no one gets permission. MR. PALING-But they're parking cars there now, Roger, and we're trying to eliminate that. MR. HILTON-In defense of the applicant here, he is indicating that he wants to put green area in the right-of-way, and that's an improvement to the site. I think that if they want to do that, that's great. They should just seek approval from the responsible municipality. Okay. Those are all the comments 1 have at this point. Warren County, on the 10th of April, held a meeting and voted to disapprove this item. Warren County felt that they would like to retain the industrial zones that are located in the Town. They say that it's also a part of the County Master Plan to preserve zones that remain for industry. MR. PALING-This was a church once, was it not, originally a church. MR. HILTON-At one time it was a church. MR. RUEL-I have a comment, and it ties in with Warren County, and this is a statement for the record. Now I don't know if Warren County gets a copy of our minutes. I hope they do. In any event, this is addressed to them, Warren County. I was disappointed in their disapproval of the church on South Western Avenue. Apparently they feel that industrial and/or commercial zoning is more important than churches. Now illY participation on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Committee leads me to believe that Queensbury has ample industrial zoning. It is illY belief that churches are more important than industry. MRS. LABOMBARD-Who wrote that? MR. PALING-Roger wrote it, right? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. HILTON-We also, Bob, if I may, we have a Beautification Committee memo regarding this that I'd like to read into the record. On April 8, 1996, the Beautification Committee reviewed this application. I'm going to read directly from the paper I have in front of me. It says that IIFrank & Janice Mangialomini, Pastors came in lieu of Michael Juliano. They are considering either re- siding part of the building with wood sheathing possibly just the front to improve exterior (like Cool Beans). Four (4) windows will be installed on both sides of the building and possibly one (1) in front to the left of the door. Church will be installing a handicap ramp (plans show in front of building) due to minimal frontage - Church will probably install handicap/wheelchair ramp in rear of building so more green can be put in front. They appear to have 2 burning bushes and evergreens in front. Ms. Gosline recommended cluster plantings around these bushes and Mrs. Mangialomini stated they would put lots of flowers to supplement in addition to possible flower boxes. Ms. Gosline suggested gable roof for front porch. Ms. Gosline asked if they would have dumpsters - response was none was planned. Ms. Gosline asked about snowplowing and they stated the lot has plenty of area to plow and store snow. The Committee recommended handicap ramp be installed - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) in rear of building due to road frontage and rise to entrance in addition to handicap parking in rear of building. Ms. Dougherty recommended the church keep existing bushes in front and supplement with cluster plantings, perennials and annuals in mounded beds. Ms. Wetherbee made a motion to approve with recommendations listed with Mr. Lorenz seconding the motion." That's the comment we have from the Beautification Committee. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HAYES-My name is Michael Hayes. I'm the owner of the property. MR. LEVACK-I'm Mark Levack. Levack Real Estate, listed broker. MIKE JULIANO MR. JULIANO-Mike Juliano representing the Firstlove Christian Fellowship. MR. PALING-All right. Is there any further discussion or questions? I think that we're going to look to you for an answer. I believe you need further clarification on the seating number so that you can make a judgement on the parking spaces, and the Beautification Committee comments as well, especially the one concerning the handicapped ramp. If you'd comment on all of those, please. MR. JULIANO-Basically, to address the seating situation, we are looking, with the arrangement of the building now, to seat approximately 74 adults. Now we're overflowing, we figure to be able to expand to at least 90. The parking will address 90 vehicles. The seating for 90, 90 will be the seating. MR. PALING-Okay. George, you can do some arithematic on that. MR. JULIANO-There's 18 spots. MR. HILTON-That would be just enough for 90. MR. PALING-That's okay. All right. So for 90 people, which is the projected, then we're okay. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. PALING-All right, and would you want to comment on the Beautification Committee and the ramp. MR. JULIANO-Basically what we've done, the site plan up there is pretty much the way it sits right now. We adjusted, from the first part of the plan, to take into consideration all the requests of the Boards that we've been in front of. This has worked out better for us, giving us a better plan, better aisle of movement for the traffic. We do plan to have a one way arrangement of traffic going into the building from the right hand side, as you look at it now, going around the back and coming out the old Paul Street. This will much easy any pedestrian and alleviate any type of backing hazard which was a concern of the previous Board. MR. RUEL-Is that Paul Street a street? MR. JULIANO-It was abandoned by the Town of Queensbury. MR. RUEL-It is a street now? MR. JULIANO-No. I'm using it as Paul Street, but it's abandoned. I don't know what it is now. - 20 - {Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96} MR. RUEL-What's there? I didn't see anything there. MR. PALING-There's a street, well, what was a street is there. Yes. MR. HAYES-That street was abandoned to Daggett Vending and the Hayes family on one side, and Adirondack Coffee which owned the church on the other side. We maintain the road, currently, now. MR. PALING-Okay. So it's not a Queensbury owned road. It's not a Town road. MR. HILTON-It's not a Town road. It's abandoned. MR. LEVACK-It's blacktop parking lot. MR. RUEL-Yes. Who owns that? MR. HILTON-I think it was split between the property owner to the north and south. MR. JULIANO-They own up to the middle of the road, whoever is adjacent to the street. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. PALING-Okay, and the ramp? MR. JULIANO-It'll be a wooden frame ramp. MR. PALING-Where will it be located? MR. JULIANO-In the rear of the building. MR. PALING-Is that what is shown here at the back, is that what that is, a ramp? MR. JULIANO-Basically, yes. MR. RUEL-I see it. MR. JULIANO-We had originally put it to the front, toward the side, but again, it would cause problems with basically the traffic. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Questions? MR. RUEL-Yes. What's that item on the right hand side of the building? I can't read it? MR. PALING-Basement stairs. MR. RUEL-Basement stairs. Okay. MR. HILTON-One other comment that I may offer, in just looking at this plan. This is the first I've seen it, too. It looks acceptable to me. Everything looks good. The parking's there. The green space is generous. The Planning Board may wish to have some trees or plantings identified and put in the green spaces that are on their property. That's the only other comment I would offer. MR. RUEL-The Beautification Committee didn't say anything about it? MR. MACEWAN-They named a couple of specifics, didn't there? They talked about burning bush, I know that. hearing that. they, in I remember MR. RUEL-They made some recommendations, I thought. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. HILTON-They made some recommendations. I'm actually speaking for any new plantings that could be put in along those green areas in the back, and maybe on their side of the property line on Western Avenue. In looking at this plan, I'm just suggesting. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that's a good idea, something like a conifer, like a spruce tree would be pretty. MR. LEVACK-Could we suggest that, you know, the Hayes and the church are in the project together, take a look at the landscaping that's been conducted at Cool Beans that will be something along the lines, not anything that elaborate, but the goal of this project that you should know, the Planning Board, is we plan, we have all the properties listed right now for sale. The Hayes have sold Daggett Vending to the Pepsi, Desormo brothers, and the goal for this section of Western Avenue, because the Hayes own the church, they own the old Daggett Vending building, the warehouse, the soda machines, vending machines and the small office and Cool Beans, and all of those parcels sit on pre-existing independent parcels. It's Micky's goal, and our goal to go forward to try to tie together a very aesthetically appealing situation with a lot of continuity from property to property to property, and that isn't going to leave one property under landscaped. We even want to go so far as to improve the aesthetics of the adjoining property by putting a new facade type situation on it, and get some sort of commercial use in that property so no doubt we will be in front of you again at some point because it is zoned Light Industrial. We feel we're going to be running up against the same problem of having a commercial tenant, which is probably the higher and better use for that area than a Light Industrial, but we will be improving the aesthetics of all the properties in that area. MR. RUEL-The Daggett building is empty now? MR. LEVACK-Yes, it is. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. LEVACK-For storage. It's used for storage. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mark, did you say you're going to put the new facade on that Daggett building? I thought that was already sold? MR. RUEL-No, later, not now. MR. LEVACK-The business was sold, not the real estate. They still own all the real estate. MRS. LABOMBARD-I've got you. MR. RUEL-Now you're going to put new siding on the church in the front? MR. JULIANO-Up top. It'll match with the motif. MR. RUEL-What about the sides, anything on the sides? stucco? Is that MR. HAYES-That's actually masonry block up there. block type filler. It's like a MR. RUEL-Yes. It looks like stucco. MR. HAYES-There's a few layers of paint on there. I think it gives it a stucco look. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. HAYES-But they are going to be adding some windows. The building is very tall for the area, because it was a church. It looks very stark and white because there is no window. They're going to have windows in there. So it should break it up a little bit. MR. RUEL-Yes. What happened to the steeple? MR. HAYES-There is actually, what you'd call that. MR. RUEL-There's no steeple. You've got to have a steeple. MR. STARK-Mr. Juliano, when people drive down Western Avenue going south, where will they unload, like, you know, people going to church. They'll come in the right hand side, let the people out, and then find a parking spot? MR. JULIANO-Pull down that way, yes. They can also pull all the way to the other side of the building. Basically, coming down Western Avenue from this way you'd come in the church parking lot, unload in this general area, for portions of it, or continue all the way around and unload this portion. This would be a walkway in front here, between the green areas, and allow people access this way and this way, plus out through the rear. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. We have a public hearing on this matter tonight. So I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone that cares to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Are there any other further comments or questions? Then we'll entertain a motion. MR. MACEWAN-Did we decide what we're going to do about landscaping and spelling it out? MR. PALING-Yes. Well, I have a note as to what illY interpretation of that is, and it's got to be part of the motion, right. MR. MACEWAN-Share it with us. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Lets hear it. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-96 FIRSTLOVE CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With the following stipulations: That the plantings and notification of no parking be approved by the responsible Town or City authority. This stipulation is made because at least a part of the No Parking identification and the grass is on Town property. That the applicant will have approved a planting plan by the Beautification Committee, prior to a building permit being issued. That signage will clearly show one way entrance on the north side of the church, rounding around the church, and then exiting on the south side with appropriate signage there, with arrows and signage in both places. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote: - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. MACEWAN-You wouldn't want them to go back to the Beautification Committee and have them spell it right out what they're looking for? MR. PALING-Okay. Well, what I was going to say on that was that the general landscaping and planting plan be up to the level already established with Cool Bean. MR. RUEL-I don't think you can do that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, Mark said it wasn't going to be to the point of that elaborate. I mean, that is really pretty nice. MR. LEVACK-You're going to love the look of it when you're done. So however you can quantify that in language, we're willing to abide by. If you want us to take the time to write a couple of names on the map right now, spreading yew, flowering, crab, whatever. It's going to be nice. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I think we need to be definitive about what we're looking for in front of there. I mean, I think the Board's pretty flexible about what they want there. We just need to have something down in writing on paper that when John makes his site visits, to make sure everything's up to the site plan approval, what you say is going there is ending up there. MR. PALING-Why don't you propose to us, then, what you'll put there. MR. HILTON-Actually, Bob, if I may, I'd like to just add one thing. The Board could, if they felt they wanted to, stipulate that an acceptable landscaping plan be approved by the Beautification Committee, prior to a building permit being issued. MR. PALING-Is that okay? MR. MACEWAN-Thank you, George. That's where I was going. MR. RUEL-That's good. MR. PALING-All right. Then the last stipulation of the motion is that the applicant will have approved a planting plan by the Beautification Committee, prior to a building permit being issued. MR. HAYES-Excuse me. Can I make a comment? MR. PALING-Go ahead. MR. HAYES- I'm sorry about that. We agreed to request that no parking signs are placed there, but it's up to the municipality, being Glens Falls or Queensbury, to say if they're going to do it or not. We can't determine that. We're going to ask and request and petition. MR. PALING-Yes. You've got to go along with whatever they would say, and we're asking there to be No Parking signs. If they override us, I don't think we can do anything about it. MR. HAYES-Absolutely. We'll petition them. Whatever they decide, I guess that'll be it. MR. JULIANO-I just have one more comment in relationship to the front of the buildings. The previous Board was concerned about traffic backing into there. MR. PALING-I'm concerned about it, too. I think we all are, yes. - 24 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. JULIANO-My view, as someone who has been involved with the plans since the beginning, is to not allow any type of large bushes in the front of the building. It'll both block the entrance and/or the exit. So if we kept the beginning of the building itself, have the larger trees or anything to the rear, and this is of course to the Beautification Committee, but to keep it as simple as possible at the front, for the best possible look, I think would be the best advantage to the community and to us. MR. PALING-And that which would keep cars away from trying to pull in and back out. MR. MACEWAN-Is your intent to have just a continuous circular pattern around that building? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-You would enter on the north side and exit on the south. Are you going to put up signage to indicate that? MR. JULIANO-We're going to try to, yes. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we make it part of the motion they have to put the signage up. That way we'll be sure to be done and you won't have any traffic problems. MR. JULIANO-It sounds good. MR. PALING-All right. We'll add to the motion, then. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. RUEL-How many days a week will you be using it? MR. JULIANO-We meet, currently, Wednesday evening and Sunday morning. MR. RUEL-Two days a week? MR. JULIANO-Two days a week with associated little meetings during the week, but they're not the full congregation. MR. RUEL-Do you expect any lighting back there? MR. JULIANO-Yes. The lighting's addressed. There's halogen lamps on the back of the building now. There's two street lamps. MR. RUEL-Yes, because you do have some evening services. luck. Good MR. JULIANO-Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-George, I've got a question for you, just out of curiosity, looking at what the Beautification Committee did for this site plan versus the one they did on top of it for Toys nRn Us, they weren't really specific with Toys nRn Us what they were looking for plantings, and this one here, they were specific. Any thoughts on that? MR. HILTON-My only thought is that I think what we're going to try to do in the future is coordinate more closely with Ms. Gosline and the Committee when our plans come in. Maybe if we do something like that, we can involve the Beautification Committee in the - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) decision making process early and maybe we can get some kind of consistency as you say. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I mean, we've been following their guidelines for a number of years now, and we usually attached their recommendations right to our motion. MR. HILTON - I also think, in the case of Toys "R" Us, we had a situation where there was an awful lot of pavement out there that the Beautification Committee and Planning Staff wanted to see removed, and I think there were more clear objectives there. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's a good idea. Craig is right. that we're getting more and more involved in planting. It seems to me landscaping and MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-And why do we have a Beautification Committee? MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-We spent a lot of time and we asked the applicant to make all sorts of modifications for landscaping. MR. HILTON-Right. I agree. MR. RUEL-It seems to me that that kind of work should have been done beforehand. MR. HILTON-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good point. It is. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED BERKSHIRE - QUEENS BURY L. L. C. OWNERS: KEITH CAVAYERO & ELYSA BROWN ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: N/W CORNER OF MAIN ST. & WESTERN AVE. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.01 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS OF 1.01 ACRES AND 1.00 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 23-1996, SP 8- 96 TAX MAP NO. 130-3-18 LOT SIZE: 2.01 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER & JOHN CARUSO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1996 Preliminary Stage, Berkshire-Queensbury L.L.C., Meeting Date: April 23, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to subdivide a commercial property into 2 lots. The subject property is located on the west side of Western Avenue between Luzerne Road and Main Street. The area of the two proposed lots would be 1 acre and 1.01 acres. Development issues such as access, stormwater retention, wastewater disposal and site design will be addressed at the time of site plan review for the proposed development of these two lots. Staff would recommend approval of Preliminary Stage - Subdivision No. 3-1996." MR. PALING-Okay. Now this may be jumping ahead, but on your full Environmental Assessment form, you divide the acreage up, have a total acreage different and divide it up differently than what you've stated on your application. MR. LAPPER-For the record, my name's Jon Lapper, representing the applicants. With me tonight is John Caruso, sitting next to me, the engineer from Passero Associates. The representative of Berkshire-Queensbury L.L.C. and the developer of many CVS Pharmacies is Chris Peznola, and he's here also to answer questions, and the site architect is Norbert Hausner. He's here - 26 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) also. I have the notification to the 40 some odd property owners within 500 feet, I'd like to submit for the subdivision. MR. PALING-Why is this being done? MR. HILTON- It is the applicant's responsibility at Preliminary subdivision to notify the property owners. MR. PALING-To bring it at this time. Okay. MR. HILTON-They can do that. As long as they have them in, we can hear the item. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. George, do you have any further comment at this time about this? MR. HILTON-At this time, I don't have any particular comments on the subdivision. Everything looks pretty straightforward. It's a two lot subdivision. The Area Variance has been granted for 0 lot line setback relief, and all other issues will be addressed at the Discussion Item. MR. PALING-Okay. moment? Okay. Are there any questions or comments at the MR. LAPPER-With respect to the subdivision, in the CR-15 zone it has to be a minimum lot size of one acre. The parcel is 2.1 acres as it exists. We're subdividing it into a one acre parcel and a 1.1 acre parcel, but that is in compliance, and it does not require any variances. MR. PALING-Okay, to a 1 and a 1.01, I think you mean MR. LAPPER-Excuse me. MR. PALING-You realize it says on this it's 2.0 and it's a 1.4 and a .6. MR. LAPPER-That's incorrect. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CARUSO-What you're looking at there is the difference in land, the part that's landscaping and lawn and the part that's building. Is that what you're referring to? MR. PALING-No. completed is 2.0, you're saying. It says present acreage 2.0. Acreage after okay, roads and buildings. Okay. I see what MR. CARUSO-It's just a breakdown. MR. PALING-Okay. This is right then. I back off. Okay. right. I thought that meant the way you were dividing it. the lawn and landscaping. Okay. Fine. I'm sorry. That's That's MR. CARUSO-Yes. Form out, not project. We tried to fill the Environmental Assessement subdividing the property, just show the whole MR. PALING-All right. Fine. MR. LAPPER-What we've essentially done is, this could have been done as a subdivision to have two completely separate lots because that would be permissible in the zone, but we thought and designed it that it would be more appropriate to have access from both streets. So that really functions as one site, so that each of the business entities will be able to own their own facility. So that - 27 - -- . -.-------..-" ..~"'---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) CVS will be separately owned from Dr. Cavayero' s Chiropractic office. His office is currently in the (lost word) plaza, about a half mile down from the Broad Street Plaza, in the City, right on Broad Street. Most of the issues that we're going to talk about are site plan related. The subdivision is pretty straightforward. The Zoning Board has granted the 0 lot line variance, to build the buildings so that they're attached. MR. PALING-Yes. As a subdivision, it seems pretty straightforward. Does anyone, as a subdivision, have any questions? MR. RUEL-Have all the structures been removed from this area? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Dr. Cavayero cleared the site when he purchased it, about a year and a half ago, in anticipation of building his office there. This used to be a tree surgeon. MR. RUEL-Yes. My only great concern in this area is the traffic. That's all. It's a heavily trafficked area. MR. LAPPER-We've addressed traffic, and we expect that will be part of our discussion when we get to site plan. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's one of the reasons you selected that site. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. RUEL-Heavy traffic. MRS. LABOMBARD- I think I was reading something else and maybe missed this initially. will this be a thoroughfare here from Luzerne Road to Corinth Road to Main Street? MR. LAPPER-There would be access to both streets. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, people aren't going to turn in and cut through? MR. PALING-We're talking subdivision now. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know. All right. I'm sorry. I'm jumping it. MR. RUEL-I have a question about water. Queensbury? Is that Glens Falls or MR. LAPPER-The water is Queensbury, but the sewer is Glens Falls. That's part of our proposal to hook into the City sewer system, and that/s part of the site plan. MR. RUEL-Yes, because I know there was a water problem in that area. MR. LAPPER-That would be within the Town water system. Yes, there was an iron (lost word) I'm pretty sure that was addressed. MR. RUEL-I think it's been rectified. So the only connection with Glens Falls is the sewer? MR. LAPPER-Yes/ and that's just fortunate because it's so close that it allows us to hook in. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's a sandy soil that whole area, isn't it? MR. LAPPER-Very sandy. MR. PALING-All right. hearing on this matter. speak about this? Any more? Then we'll open the public Is there anyone here that would care to - 28 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT HICKOK MR. HICKOK-Hi. My name's Robert Hickok. I'm the son of my mother. Her property adjoins the proposed subdivision, and she does have a problem with it. The only problem she has, in the past, there's been an awful water problem through Western and Luzerne Road. MR. PALING-Where does your mother live? MR. HICKOK-She owns this piece of property right here. They've been draining the water from this area into her property, which she really doesn't want them to do, and she's afraid that with all this blacktop area here, it's going to create more of a water problem here. Her other question was whether they were going to put a fence or anything along their property line, and the trees that are all on the property line, she would prefer that they did stay. She doesn't want any of the trees taken down. MR. RUEL-They're not on her property? MR. HICKOK-They're right on the line, most of them, whether it's split half and half. MR. RUEL-Is there another home down near Main Street. MR. HICKOK-No. Her house is down here, and then this is all vacant back here. MR. RUEL-I see. It's just one house. MR. HICKOK-Yes. MR. RUEL-And then that long strip which is on Western Avenue? MR. HICKOK-Yes. Her whole property adjoins Western Avenue and Luzerne Road. She's in between Main Street and Luzerne Road, but she doesn't care about the subdivision, just the boundary between the properties, whether it be a fence or something, what they were going to do, and she does not want the existing trees to be taken down because that was proposed by the land owner at one time, and then the water drainage problem. MR. RUEL-George, is there a requirement for a buffer zone? MR. HILTON-Because of the zoning of the property, they're not required to provide a buffer. MR. LAPPER-Ordinarily, there would be a buffer, but this was all re-zoned, in 1988 to commercial. So we're going with the proper commercial use in the zone, there's not a 50 foot requirement next to a residential house, only in a residential zone. MRS. LABOMBARD-But are you going to keep the trees, were you planning to keep them? MR. LAPPER-We'll talk about that at site plan. MR. CARUSO-Mr. Chairman, I think you'll find that during our site plan presentation we'll go through all that in detail for you. MR. PALING-Right. I understand. We're going to do two things tonight. All we're doing right now is subdividing a piece of land. The questions you asked will be addressed when it comes to site plan review. They'll be in the discussion tonight, and then there'll be a further hearing after that, but there will be discussion tonight. Okay. Is there anyone else from the public - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) that would like to speak on this matter? Okay. the subdivision we'll close the public hearing. If not, then on PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-I have a question. I must have missed something somewhere. Why are we subdividing this? MR. LAPPER-In theory so that Dr. Cavayero can own his business property and Berkshire-Queensbury developer will be the owner of the CVS facility, so that they can each own their facilities. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. LAPPER-Dr. Cavayero would like to own his office, and Berkshire-Queensbury would like to own their CVS. MR. MACEWAN-The same scenario we did for the Wal-Mart. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. This is short. Okay. So then we've got to do a SEQRA. MR. HILTON-Short or Long. MR. MACEWAN-What did the applicant fill out, short or long? MR. LAPPER-We submitted a Long Form. MR. MACEWAN-Then that's the one we do. MR. PALING-We can still go to the Short Form, can't we? MR. FRIEDLAND-They didn't hand in one. MR. PALING-Well, they handed in Part I of the Long Form. MR. MACEWAN-Our practice has been we do the form the applicant submits. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. RUEL-Yes, whatever the applicant has submitted. MR. PALING-Okay. Go ahead. MR. RUEL-But the applicant didn't fill it out, right? MR. PALING-They filled out Part I. It's right here. MR. RUEL-I see. So that goes with the Long one. MR. PALING-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-1996, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning BERKSHIRE-QUEENSBURY L.L.C., and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, - 30 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. The subdivision, preliminary stage, now bring it to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1996 BERKSHIRE - QUEENSBURY L.L.C., Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Proposal is to subdivide a two acre parcel. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer DISCUSSION ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 8-96 - BERKSHIRE ACQUISITION MR. PALING-Okay. Now we can go. Now we're on the same subject, except it's a discussion item now. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. RUEL-The public hearing is closed, right? MR. PALING-The public hearing was closed. - 31 - {Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96} MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. STARK-Do you plan on being on next month for the Final? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STARK-And the site review also? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We've submitted all three together so that we could have this meeting tonight to talk about site issues. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll open up, now, the discussion portion of this, and if it's okay, I'm going to allow anybody that wants to comment to comment, but why don't you go ahead, as a discussion item. MR. LAPPER-I'd like to ask John Caruso, the engineer, to take you through the site plan, and then Norbert Hausner, the architect, can take you through the site elevations. MR. HILTON-Bob, if I may. I have some comments prepared for this. I don't know which order you want to do them in. It's entirely up to you. MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't you make them now, and then they can address them as they're. MR. CARUSO-Actually, I'd like to present and give you the flavor of the proj ect and then I can tell you how we addressed George's concerns. MR. PALING-Okay. You know them already? MR. CARUSO-Yes, sir. MR. PALING-Okay. them. Go ahead, and then we'll still have you read MR. LAPPER-We've met with George, gone over his comments and prepared, made changes to the plan. MR. CARUSO-Well, before I begin, my name is John Caruso. I'm the engineer in charge of the project. I'm with Passero Associates, and we hail from Rochester. The people that we work for, Berkshire, is really and excellent client, and we're going to ask you to allow us to prove that to you, and you'll see from our plans and our presentations what we bring to the project, and that really is through our client. If our client affords us any landscaping budget that we can run trees all along the property, then we'll do that, and I think you'll find that that is just one of the few aspects that we bring to a site to enhance it. CVS, in working with CVS as a consulting engineer, which is what we are, and Norbert Hausner, our architect is a consulting architect, is one of many clients that we work for, and we have a flavor for a lot of different people. We don't work for CVS directly. They are first class people. These are people who fly their design professionals down and meet them and tell you what they're looking for from you. They have corporate ideas, but they're also flexible with us because they want to be excellent neighbors. They want people to like them in their communities. That's what makes them profitable. They give us the flexibility to change parking landscaping and green areas, to a point where we can bring them to Boards such as this and show you renderings and colors that the neighbors will be pleased at seeing, not at something that is obtrusi ve. The Queensbury project has been a very good experience for us, and your Board and your Staff should know that our work, up front, has been well received. We've been treated very well, and working out of town it's not easy for us, and you people were very good to us and - 32 - --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) you need to know that. With all that said, this project was designed with several features in mind, and one of them was traffic flow, and the other one was setback from the intersections so that we had access to two roads without the access impacts such as the entrances and the conflicts associated with that. We knew that, even though the properties around the perimeter of the property were zoned commercial, we still had some residential occupancy, and we want to do the landscaping and the buffering, even though there isn't a buffer requirement, you'll see that we have some heavily planted trees around our compactor, along residential perimeters there's trees that are there, and to answer your question, if you look on Drawing Number One that you have, you'll see the existing trees that you were referring to, and we've maintained that. They are staying. They are very close to your property line. We're not splitting hairs. There's plenty of room for us to do what we want without having to take those down. We've also shown that we planned to do that. MR. RUEL-How about on the left side, the house on the left side? MR. CARUSO-This is all planted along here. At this point, we changed the plantings to some taller pines because we have a compactor in this area, which is also screened, okay. MR. RUEL-You have screening between your property and that house? MR. CARUSO-All the way around, and then we sprinkled the screening here along the road so that you could still identify the parking area, and then we have a green area in here. With respect to the use of the facility, CVS is known only by the engineers or the people involved with it, but they really are a low impact user. You can put approximately 9,000 square feet down on the site. They don't generate a whole lot of traffic. They employ three to five people during their normal hours. Their hours of operation are nine to nine. They're not open 'til midnight 24 hours a day. They really draw and work off of traffic that's already on the road. It's not like someone from the subdivision will get in their car, dri ve down the street, into CVS, get something and go home. Although that does occur, most of CVS' volume are from people on the way home who need to pick up a prescription or need to stop and get something. They're what we call pass by traffic because they're already on the road. One of the things that CVS is doing with their new prototypes is putting a drive through window, which affords people who want to swing by and pick up a prescription, but just to give you a little bit more information on the drive through, the drive through is not a fast food drive through where it has a speaker and, you know, that kind of volume in traffic. What it is is you call ahead. The pharmacist will prepare what you need. You drive up and there's a direct exchange by the window. Part of that has to do with the controls they need to have for pharmaceuticals, but the other is that they want to create a low impact, but it's a convenient way for people to come in and pick up a prescription without having to get out of the car. MR. STARK-I have a few questions here. It says the lease area is 3,634, but the proposed doctors office is only 3,000. What's the other 634? MR. CARUSO-That's lease area for retail. MR. STARK-Another 634 square foot lease then. MR. CARUSO-Right. It would be a third use which is likely to be something that's consistent with the two that are already there. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. CARUSO-We don't know what those uses are. We have accounted - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) for them in our traffic study and our computations for sewage and water consumption, and runoff. MR. STARK-You don't have any idea what's going in there though? MR. CARUSO-No, we don't. MR. STARK-Okay. Another item, entrance on Main Street. How far is the entrance in from the intersection of Broad and Main and Western? MR. CARUSO-It is about 200 and something feet. MR. LAPPER-It's as far from the intersection as it could be on this site. MR. STARK-Jon, did you contact DOT or anything to see how they feel about this? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We contacted, it's a County road, so we contacted Warren County D. P. W. We actually went as far as to prepare a traffic report in advance, before anybody asked for it, to traffic counts, and we submitted the report to Paul Naylor on the Town side and the County, and the Town Engineer, Rist-Frost, has reviewed that as well. MR. PALING-George, were you part of that? MR. HILTON-I have the correspondence in my hand, and I was going to, as part of my presentation, address Warren County and Paul Naylor and Rist-Frost with their comments. MR. PALING-Well, why don't we do it now, because I think this is appropriate to George's question. MR. HILTON-Okay. traffic portion. I will, right now, just concentrate on the MR. PALING-Yes, please. MR. HILTON-Okay. A copy of the traffic study was submitted to Roger Gebo at Warren County. I received a letter today from an associate that says, I'm going to read directly from the letter. "After review of the traffic study for the proposed CVS Pharmacy, we still have concern for the safety of vehicles exiting the site and attempting to make a left turn onto Corinth Road. While realizing that you have placed the driveway as far as possible from the intersection of Western Avenue and Corinth Road, a vehicle making a left turn exiting the site, it requires to cross the merge portion of the left turn lane approaching the signal. This crossing has an extra conflict not represented within the traffic study. A driveway permit will be issued with the condition that the developer supply an accident and congestion report six months after the completion of the proj ect . The County D. P. W., if satisfied with the conditions, reserves the right to eliminate the left hand turn. This report will be submitted to the County D.P.W. for review and acceptance." Signed Lisa A. penisten. MR. PALING-That's interesting. George, in regard to this? Do you have any other comments, MR. HILTON-So far, preliminary comment from Paul Naylor I don't have anything official in writing, but after speaking to him, he has no comments or concerns. He accepts what the traffic study indicates. MR. PALING-Okay. So it's a left hand turn that we're trying to hold for six months and see what happens. - 34 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. HILTON-Right, and as far as Rist-Frost, a letter dated April 19, 1996, I'm reading directly. It says, liThe traffic impact report indicates proper consideration has been given to traffic flow and only minor impact will occur. Parking is acceptable. Curb cut permits must be cleared through the proper jurisdictions. Consideration should be given to the need for traffic signs and/or one way traffic to and from the drive through window. II MR. PALING-One way traffic to and from the drive in window. Yes, that would be okay. Okay. George? MR. HILTON-Those are the only traffic related comments that we have at this point. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-I know exactly what the DOT is saying, but it's still a problem. Jon, address that before the site plan, okay, or make sure you address it at the site plan. I don't think we're going to okay a left hand turn coming out of there. MR. LAPPER-I guess this is a good opportunity for us to just talk about traffic on that road in general, and I also drive that every day like we all do, but I think that there are a couple of unique things. That road was built before the Northway was there, and so it wasn't built, obviously, as a four lane road. That's the only entrance to Glens Falls, and we all understand that, and certainly at the peak hour, at the evening peak hour, this is an issue. We didn't even study the morning peak hour because CVS doesn't even open until nine o'clock in the morning. So we would have no impact on morning peak hour, and driving this road at various times of the day, I notice that, while at night you certainly can wait longer than you'd like to in this part of the world, that middle of the day no issue at all. It's really people commuting to jobs in Glens Falls and commuting to the Northway. So certainly, peak hour, traffic report showed, we did actual traffic counts, 500 cars in each direction through that intersection, but it's not the case where the intersection is failing or the intersection can't handle those 500 vehicle trips. The Town re-zoned this whole strip to commercial in '88 with the intention that all those residents that are going to build close to the road would be, at some point, changed into commercial and also incorporated the transportation corridor overlay district of the 75 foot setback, with the intention that some day there would be change in the traffic improvements, another lane, turning lane, throughout the length of this, or else two lanes at some point. It's a County road. The County has talked about making improvements at various times. It's not something that's on the table now, but we can predict that within 20 years, there'll probably be some improvement, but certainly in the Town's Master Plan, that this is an area that is appropriate for commercial, not residential. We're complying with the 75 foot setback which would allow for green space to accommodate a turning lane or an extra lane in the future, if the County decides to make those improvements, but with respect to this site, looking at the traffic study you see that during the peak hour, what we're talking about with the entire site, the doctor's office, the rental space next to the doctor's office and CVS is a total of 70 trips, half of which are pass by traffic that are there anyway right now, people that would be commuting and have to use these facilities. So that in terms of the 500 cars in each direction that are already there, we're adding very few, and the design of the entrance meets the Town's new standards in terms of width and it has that center median so that this is designed to accommodate this kind of traffic. We don't anticipate that there's going to be a left turn issue because there is a pretty good distance between this site and the intersection and there's room on our property for stacking. So that if it was a question where people would have to wait to turn out, it would be our customers - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) that would have to sit and wait, but they wouldn't be in the intersection. They wouldn't be blocking anybody. So it wouldn't affect how that County road operates. It would just affect our site and people will just have to wait if they want to make a left turn. MR. CARUSO-They actually stack. They can stack along this whole area here, and they could stack here without affecting any of the parked cars. MR. RUEL-You mentioned left turn, but what about a car traveling east on Main wanting to go into your driveway? He would be blocking the merge lane. MR. LAPPER-Well, people could go, that's a couple hundred feet back. MR. RUEL-Yes, but he'd still be blocking people that wanted to use that merge lane to make a left at the light. MR. LAPPER-Well, the thing about traffic lights is that, in stopping traffic, they also create the opportunity for people to make those turns because they stop people at the light and it creates gaps, so that if someone is waiting there to make the turn, when the traffic light at the intersection turns, there should be a gap, and they should be able to turn left and the other people should be able to go straight. MR. MACEWAN-That's a nice thought, but in the real world that rarely happens. I mean, that particular intersection right there, with that turning lane set up there for Western, the start of that turning lane, starts actually before where you're proposed entrance and exit is on that property. MR. LAPPER-It does, but I think that it allows approximately 10 cars in front of our turning lane up to the intersection. So we've got considerable stacking, and if there's a, most of the day, it's not going to be a problem at all, and if there's a time of the day when there's 10 people stacked to make a left turn, which is a lot, and I don't know if our traffic report (lost word) with that, with people making a left turn waiting in line, but that would be only during this evening peak hour. MR. MACEWAN-But that's not so much regarding that turning lane itself. You're talking about the traffic that's backed up and waiting for the light to change, that plans on going straight down to Main Street into the City on Broad Street, not necessarily turning on Western. MR. LAPPER-But you've got two lanes, so that if, anybody that would be waiting to make a left would be in the left turn lane. They wouldn't be blocking traffic. There's still a by pass lane. MR. MACEWAN-No, but somebody who's been waiting to make a left hand turn to come out of CVS and to go left and head downtown Glens Falls, they still not only have to cut across that turning lane set up for Western, they've got to try to merge in with the lane that's planning on going straight ahead and there's always a number of cars backed up there. MR. LAPPER-But that would still require about 10 cars to be there, and they would be the 11th car. So that's an awful lot of cars stacked up to make a left turn. MR. MACEWAN-Barring the middle of the night, I mean, I travel that road every day numerous times throughout the day and there's always a stack up problem there. - 36 - ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. RUEL-If there was a left turn signal, arrow. MR. MACEWAN-There is. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it needs to be repainted. MR. RUEL-No, when you're going on Main and you're going east and you want to make a left onto Western. MR. MACEWAN-There's a light. There's an arrow. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it's worn down, though, Craig. You can barely see it. They need to repaint it. MR. STARK-This is going to come before us next month again, okay. The issue of the water on that corner where the car lot used to be and everything will be addressed at that point. NEIGHBOR-I know I've been contacting Mr. Naylor about it. MR. STARK-Okay. There's not going project into that corner. I mean, retained on the lot, and you've seen again for this. to be any runoff from this all the stormwater will be this, but you'll be notified MR. PALING-We'll ask the applicant to comment on the water runoff, the fence and the trees, to your question. We'll just ask them to comment on your questions. MR. MACEWAN-Personally, I don't feel comfortable with allowing a left hand turn to come out of the project. I think it should only be allowed, west bound entrance and the west bound exit. MR. CARUSO-Mr. Chairman, could I address that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. CARUSO-Before we started the project, we got a hold of Roger Gebo at the County, and we spoke with Roger about his concerns, since it is on a County road, and we asked Roger what he thought the best way to handle this, and it was important to us to try to set the design guidelines right up front. Roger conveyed to us that there was this heavy left turn in here, and that we should try to keep as far away from the intersection as possible, and that's what prompted us to do the traffic study before anybody even asked us to do one, and in doing this traffic study we looked, literally, at this left turn storage lane and the signal light's ability to clear this queuing of cars, and we also looked at the ability for this intersection to function with the left turn, and although we agreed that it is not the most ideal situation, we did find that, numerically, there was enough gaps generated by this signal light which, you know, you've said the ideal world thing. It is an ideal world thing, but this signal light turns over every 60 seconds, and it does generate enough gaps to let the cars out. It's not great, but I'm telling you, 23 hours a day, this intersection will function normally, and it functions okay over one hour of the day, and I don't think that is significant enough to cut off a left turn on that. Now, maybe there's some things that we can do by reducing the width of this driveway so then we can maybe reduce the out let lane to 12 feet, so that there isn't. It's not bad, but we can either try to restrict it more, or we could make it wider where we could have the right turn cars going further west bound. We can accommodate that, too, but I just wanted to let you know that we did seek to answer that question. We knew it was an issue with this Board, and we did look at that specifically, and from an engineering point of view, we've showed that to them, and that's why they brought it right out in their comments, okay, you guys made a point to us that it isn't as bad as we thought. Lets do a - 37 - -= (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) six month conditional, and that's what, so I want to ask you to be a little more open minded about it, at this point. MR. MACEWAN-It's not that I'm being closeminded to anything. I'm just trying to take it from a safety standpoint and traveling that section of the road every day and turning down Western where my office is. Every day I go down there, and I'm on that road, through that intersection three or four times during the day at different hours, and I don't see, this is only going to add to the problems. I don't see it helping it. MR. LAPPER-We would ask, we think that we've designed this correctly, that we've engineered it, and the County seems to agree and Paul does and the Town Engineer, and all we're asking is, we would consent to this condition, that in six months we will supply the numbers and accident reports, etc., and at that point, the County has already reserved the right, because they're the ones that have to give us the curb cut permit to put this curb cut in, that if this is the situation, rather than just perceptions, because we all know it's a busy area, if there are problems, they've already reserved the right, and we will consent to that, and we will restrict it to right turn. MR. MACEWAN-You need to remember, I'm just one individual on this Board and this is one individual's opinion. There's seven of us on the Board. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, but we would just ask that you consider it reasonable for us to agree to this condition. If you cut it off right now, it's going to be an issue with us and CVS, that's going to affect how they look at the site. We would like to get in, we think that we've engineered correctly and that it will function, and John has done many of these, designed many of these, and we really studied it because we knew that we should, and the County told us that it's okay, and it's their road and it's their intersection, and if it doesn't work, not only are they, you know, they're responsible in terms of making sure it works, but also they've asked us, up front, to consent to this condition and we will. So there's already a method to deal with it. We would ask that you just decide now to cut it off. MRS. LABOMBARD-Jon, so what you're saying is that after CVS moves in, and you will have everything orchestrated, the way you have it right now, and then you will do a six month study, and should it prove to be negative consequences, negative results, then you will just alter your plan after having that business operating for six months? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Now, that would be difficult, though. MR. LAPPER-We would have to re-design that intersection right there, that egress and ingress. We would have to re-design that, curbing and signage. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, in spite of the customers still coming in and out. It would be an inconvenience, but you would do it quickly. I think that that's a reasonable request. MR. PALING-Can I just clarify something you said? Because this is strictly an accident report summary kind of a thing. It doesn't take any kind of opinions from anyone. This would be a summary of accidents. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. There's only one draw back there. What if there really is a fatal accident because of that? I mean, then we're, I mean, that's why we're here. - 38 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. CARUSO-This Board shouldn't be worried about that, because this Board leaves it up to other professionals, even their jurisdiction, that we have done what's appropriate to be done, to ask for curb cut to be approved at this design, and it's through three other technical departments that review and approve this thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-I appreciate where you're coming from. MR. PALING-I would remind you, however, that those kind of things you're referring to are an input to this Board, but the final decision is ours, and we do weigh very heavily, would you comment on what you've just said regarding congestion, please. MR. LAPPER-Yes. What the County has asked for, and I spoke incorrectly to say that it was only an accident report, which I agree with you is an after the fact type, you know, once you have a problem, but they asked for a congestion report, too, which will talk about the peak hour and during the day in terms of what the stacking is and how we'd affect, just what you're asking for in terms of that left turn lane. MR. PALING-How do you do that? MR. LAPPER-By having the traffic engineer, just like we did the traffic study to take the traffic counts, somebody would have to observe it, over the course of representative times of the day, over a week or two, and prepare an engineer's stamped report. MR. PALING-Okay. So it is congestion. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-You have a 14 foot entrance, 14 foot wide exit, 2 foot island. If there wasn't a Town Ordinance saying you needed a two foot island, would you have an island there? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STARK-We're preparing a letter tonight to go to the Town Board recommending that the Town Board, they change the Ordinance to go along with DOT. DOT doesn't like islands, okay. I don't like islands, and we're going to ask the Town Board tonight, when you people leave, we're going to compose a letter to the Town Board asking them to change that island requirement. So you might want to keep that in mind. I don't know how fast they act on something like that. MR. CARUSO-I can tell you, Mr. Stark, that if you wanted us to remove that island and try to put another lane in there, to satisfy your concern, I would be very interested in doing that, because I do get involved with a lot of traffic work, and that really helps. It really does. MR. STARK-The Town Ordinance on that is dead wrong. MR. CARUSO-The Town was trying to do something, but Ordinances change, and they change with time, and maybe in time. MR. STARK-This might be changed by next month. MR. LAPPER-We'd prefer not to have it there. voiced that opinion. The engineer has MR. STARK-Keep that in mind, that it might change by next month. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Ideally, your driveway on Main Street should be as far away as possible to the intersection. Have you - 39 - . . ._~.._,-_. - .......__..o.¡... (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) given any consideration to purchasing the lot in the southwestern corner and then putting your driveway possibly another 50, 60, 70 feet further west? MR. LAPPER- I can address that. Dr. Cavayero purchased the property, spoke to both of the adjoining property owners, and it wasn't possible to purchase either lot. MR. RUEL-There's not much on that property. MR. LAPPER-It just wasn't feasible, but because of the Town's re- zoning, these people have a somewhat inflated value of their properties. I'm not saying specifically, but they were approached, and it wasn't possible. That was something that was looked at. MR. RUEL-Yes, but you did look into it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Lets move on to other parts of this. Now would you like to continue? MR. CARUSO-Yes, sir. Other parts of the project that are very important are the landscaping and the lighting, and we designed the lighting to illuminate the entire parking area, along with the down lighting that will be on the building mounted lights. So that we can retain about one to three footcandles in this area, and that's not very bright, but it also is not very dark either, and it's a nice blend in a residential area, along with the landscaping that we propose along all the perimeters. We are going to add some landscaping at the request of George Hilton, and some of the islands up front, which is one of the reasons why, you know, if you look on that site plan that we have, these are all striped islands, and the reason I made these striped islands is because, when the facility is closed and we have our refuse vehicle in here trying to pick up, he needs these radiuses to get around and coming in here with that island there, he really has to be able to swing and it affords us some different maneuverability. MR. RUEL-For the fire apparatus. MR. CARUSO-Yes, really, it does. With that island removed, we can put the curbing back in these striped out islands and landscape them and we're not opposed to doing that at all. As a matter of fact, we'd rather do that than stripe these out. It gives us a nice appeal, right in front of the building. Other than the landscaping that we have in the tree line area. So, what I've said that we're going to save this. We do plan to landscape the entire perimeter between the building and the walkway along the facade of the building. We plan to landscape in there. There's some landscaping in the islands out here where we do have actual curbing, and we plan to address George Hilton's comments by doing more landscaping in there. MR. RUEL-Your lighting will be off at nine? CHRIS PEZNOLA MR. PEZNOLA-No. There's two different stages of lighting. There's the complete, and then there's what they leave on at night. They illuminate the parking lot at night. The way that the lighting is engineered, it's with partitions that don't allow the light to escape the parcel itself, so there's no runoff into the adjacent properties, but for safety, they keep the parking area. MR. RUEL-Yes. You mentioned the hours, CVS nine to nine. The doctor's hours? - 40 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. PEZNOLA-The doctor's hours are nine to six, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Tuesdays and Thursdays, twelve to six, and he's open Saturday mornings. MR. RUEL-Within the same hours that you have. MR. PEZNOLA-Yes. MR. CARUSO-And finally, we talked about landscaping and lighting, before I leave the lighting, I wanted you to know the lighting that we proposed, 14 foot high (lost word) a pole, it is a 250 watt fixture. It's not 400 or 1,000. So, again, it is scaled down for residential footcandles and powers in here, and they are cut off fixtures so that they don't spill back, as Chris was saying, onto the adjacent property owners. MR. RUEL-They're down lights. MR. CARUSO-Yes, they are, straight down, but it's the yellow tinted light, but it's only 14 foot high poles. They're not 20 foot high poles, so that we can look commercial but not affect residential that still occupies the area. MR. RUEL-And the signs are on the building? MR. CARUSO-There are signs on the building, on the front. We hope to get some here on the side, and then the pylons signs are on the front. MR. RUEL-Will these signs be visible in view of the? MR. STARK-You're going to have to get a variance for the signs, aren't you? MR. LAPPER-No, because we have two entrances, small signs at each entrance, plus the signs on the building. MR. RUEL-The buffer zone won't affect the visibility of the signs? MR. PEZNOLA-Well, from the intersection, with the corner lot still being residential, we're not expecting much visibility from that side. MR. RUEL-Just from the sides on Main and Luzerne? MR. PEZNOLA-You get good visibility, right. That's all we need though, and that's all that we're looking for. MR. RUEL-You have a peaked roof on it? MR. PEZNOLA-It's just in the one point. MR. RUEL-The rest of it is all flat. MR. LAPPER-This is a lot nicer than some of the other plazas that (lost words) compared to other plazas in the area. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. CARUSO-There was an issue, I wish those people would have stayed, but I wanted to address the drainage issue. This site, right now, all the drainage from the west drains right onto this property, right through this property, and on to her property. I want to turn back for just a second, and then I'll let Norbert speak about the building sizes. We really have gone through a rather neat design here, but right now all the drainage drains right through this property, right onto her property, and that's - 41 - {Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96} why she has a real low area here. It's sort of a hole, and the water ponds in there. There's a catch basin out in the corner of the road here. It's a drywell, and it does, it clogs up. What we did is we designed a. system that works in several phases of rainfall, in order to keep the water totally off her property, and Phase I, when George talks a little later, Rist-Frost commented on our design, because we submitted our calculations in our report to them, that it was a clever concept, and it seemed to be working, and they asked us to prove from our soil boreings that the area is sandy, and we had the soil boreings done and we'll be able to meet their requirements. At the time we submitted the engineering report, we didn't have the soil boreings done, completed yet, but we do know that the whole site is sand. The ground water table is down almost 12 feet. So using the ground for reclamation and drywells will work. Here's how our drainage system works. First the water gets trapped on the roof, and before the water enters the storm sewer system that runs around the site, it has to go through the roof drains to add to that. When it hits the parking lot, it gets collected in catch basins, which is located in the four corners of the site. These catch basins are actually drywells. So each time you make a turn at the corner of the site, it hits a drywell, and that's how we connect our pipes. So, when it rains, the water from the parking lot will go into the drywells, and the water from the roof will stay on the roof until it enters the roof drain, and then down into the storm sewer system and then over to the drywells. The drywells will fill with water first. Once they can't let any more water out because we have a higher intensity storm, then the water will flow through the storm sewer system to the next drywell, and if that has more capacity, it will take on more water. Ultimately, this happens through each turn until we get to this green area here, where we have two drywells in the center, and we have this area depressed. The water will fill up in these drywells. After it's gone through all these different routings, it'll hit two more drywells in here, and the water will start to surface. At such point where these drywells and the whole storm sewer system and the roof cannot take anymore water, the water will start to come out of the surface of the ground, in this area, to a depth of one foot. It's a like a pie, and this area is typically grass and mowable, but it'll hold a couple feet of water, but at one foot, it'll also hold, I should say, another foot of water, and ultimate flood storage. Finally, before it goes higher than a foot, the last drywell we had over here, we ran a pipe down the right-of-way and into the City's storm sewer system. So we have an overflow to our drainage system, before the water would go onto her property. So what I've described to you is almost five stages of different stormwater treatment before water would go to her property, and the last stage takes the water off site to the existing stormwater in the City of Glens Falls. MR. RUEL-Only after you have a foot of water there. have a foot of water first before that happens. You have to MR. CARUSO-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Why can't you have it happen before the foot of water? MR. CARUSO-Well, because the design {lost words} as much on site. MR. PALING-For the adjacent property that's a much better deal, it would seem. George, this is all okay with Rist-Frost? MR. HILTON-This is all Rist-Frost' s comments that they've addressed it and the only comment they have, John mentioned, the soil, they want to see if it's sandy enough. They want some kind of documentation on the soil type out there. MR. CARUSO-There was sandy soil down to 15 feet. - 42 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. LAPPER-We had the soil boreings done. MR. PALING-It sounds like a good system. MR. CARUSO~It's one of the aspects that we came to the site. We found out what the problems were, and we sought to achieve the solution to the design, and that's why (lost words). MR. RUEL-The parking lot then slants away from the building, right? MR. CARUSO-The parking lot slants down to the, away from the building and it picks up the storm runoff in this area. MR. RUEL-The drywells all around are different sizes? MR. CARUSO-They're all six footers. There's no small ones. I'm going to let Norbert Hausner, because I know you people have allowed us to speak tonight. We wanted to present to you our design features and how we've tried to achieve them, but the site stuff is rather easy. Here's the difficult stuff. I want to let Norbert present this to you, because here's where Norbert takes his creativity and sticks a building there that's there forever. MR. PALING-Okay. Now they asked two other questions for comment. They asked about a possible fence and keeping the trees along that line. Do you want to comment on either of those? MR. CARUSO-Yes. We plan to keep the trees, and we actually plan to add more. We do not plan to add a fence. That would be a negative impact, as far as we know. MR. PEZNOLA-We don't plan to remove any trees. The trees that exist right now are on her property. Some of them may edge over onto our property, but we're not taking any down. MR. PALING-You're just going to add to it. MR. PEZNOLA-We're going to add some trees. MR. RUEL-You're property is flat, completely flat, isn't it? MR. CARUSO-Yes, pretty much. MRS. LABOMBARD-It kind of goes up like this. MR. CARUSO-A little bit of a grade to it. It wasn't an easy task trying to make everything drain. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. NORB HAUSNER MR. HAUSNER-Norb Hausner, the architect. First of all, what John spoke about is CVS' impact as a retail co-habitant of the Town here. They're going to come into Town. They're here, basically, as a neighborhood drug store. It's not cliche as much as it is reality. What we're trying to do here, in developing this design, it's a little bit difficult because we're adding a CVS onto some other retail, and also onto a doctor's suite. So we've got a kind of a multi use building going on here. What you're seeing over here is the south elevation, right off of Main Street. The elements that you're looking at are brick facade, and I'd welcome you all to take a quick look at it before you go, but there's a great deal of detail inside this brick facade. It's not just a straight brick wall. There's soldier courses and undulations, slight variances of detail. So it's actually quite ,expensive building type. The gray color that you see along the top is a efface system. It's a stucco, synthetic plaster type of a - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) situation, and it incorporates a dental scheme, kind of an ornate, historical type of look. The element on the top of the CVS building is kind of to be a residential flavor, hip roof flavor, and the dentals go along the top of that plan as well. There's certain pilasters that are built onto the building, entablatures that kind of let it read as an entry facade. So it's pretty clear. The entrances are on the corner. The way John's site plan works, you can see it's fine corner to the intersection. So you can see very easily when you're going in and out. On this facade, you can also see the appendage of the drive through. So, again, even though it's in the back corner of the building, and it's kind of beyond normal view, it's still the same elements are being utilized in that area. On the side of the building, that really kind of embellishes everything. You've got the CVS the east side. The CVS as this turns the corner to the identical plan. So you have the kind of corbeled panelization down below, because they do have fixtures and things behind there, cash registers and things, and you have a rather undulated window scheme along the top, not a cheap building at all. Along the balance of the building going back along this direction north, we have a dental scheme and then a repetitive kind of a, it's not a real long building, but instead of having, again, a solid plane, breaking it up, undulations of the brick. These are kind of factory lights, goose neck fixtures that light the facade of the building, different from what John was talking about, which is general site lighting, the footcandles that give you security and things of that nature. This is kind of an aesthetic, washing the facade of the building so that we're not wasting the look of that in the dark, gloomy weather which we always seem to have around here. We're showing some trees along the facade of the building over here, and when you get back to the back of the CVS, which is right about here, we brought a canopy in now, so we have kind of a, I don't want to really use the word "strip" feeling, but there's a little bit of a covered area above these two, well, above this plane of retail, which is proposed about 30 feet in this area, and then from that plane right in here, again, we don't know who that retailer will be, but we've counted on it being a retail entity in the traffic study, so you can visualize at least here there'll be a band across the top that eventual retailer sign will go in that area. These window undulations here, beginning with the doctor's chiropractor, the chiropractor's office area, wraps around the side, and what we're trying to do here is to use the same elements that are on the CVS to do the doctor's suite, differentiate them, use similar elements so there's not a confusion or anything like that. So we're using the same dental scheme. We're using the same signage proportions, same window schemes, but we're eliminating the roof in that back area, and that facade turns the corner as well. Now, that facade turns the corner on the north side of the building, and what you have there is that same type of entablature covering the front entrance. There's a lot of glass in that corner. That's where his lobby will be, the entrance into that major waiting room, and what we've done, beyond what the huge levels of design, our site engineer, is we've taken the original plan that John had, which was a perfect parallel to the road, if you stand back in the plaza, I believe it's a Shop N' Save, the original design came from, was an evolution of basically looking at a site plan off site and saying, what's the best way to layout a building on the site. Well, after visiting the site a while ago, we feel that we can corbel the front of the building, the chiropractor's side of the building, instead of having a long facade, 55 feet long, we've actually broken it up into three or four equal steps, and those steps all give the opportunity for glazing, and it gives it a more residential flavor. Instead of having a 60 foot mass, it kind of breaks it up a little bit. The doctor and his design consultant, his wife seem to like it a lot. MR. CARUSO-That'll be a change on the final plan. That's just a new evol~tion, actually, and it doesn't increase or decrease the - 44 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) square footage of the building. It just takes a rather stark, bland facade and kind of undulates it back and forth, just a little articulation. MR. HAUSNER-If you looked at our plan, just real quick. I want to describe it to you. We show this building line to be straight across. On the final design plan, we've taken that and we've changed it. So that it's not straight across, so that it has a little change on that. Can you see that? MR. RUEL-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Very nice. MR. RUEL-That CVS sign, is that an embossed, plastic, back lighted sign, and will all the signs be that way? MR. HAUSNER-This is that efface system, the light gray color, and it's a stucco type of material. These are channel letters, illuminated in a red acrylic plastic. MR. RUEL-Individual letters? MR. HAUSNER-Individual letters, with the back drop of those, the box channel, electrification system is actually inside the efface. So you won't see that ugly box. You'd just see the "C" and the "V" and the "S". MR. RUEL-But the other word isn't that way though, right, Pharmacy? MR. HAUSNER-These here? These will be the same way. MR. RUEL-They'll be the same? MR. HAUSNER-Yes, sir. A further indication of, I guess, the motivation, drive, horsepower of the developer and also the doctor as well, here, because you really have two owners here, is that this, again, this facade of the building, the west side of the building is really only visible pretty much from the residential side, both zoned commercial, and those brick techniques and the lighting and the dentals and all that stuff in the back of the building, so to speak, are still being used here. So, we're putting our best face forward on all sides of the building. MR. RUEL-Aren't those homes on that side about 10 feet higher? MR. HAUSNER-There is a hill that goes up here. MR. RUEL-Yes. So all they're going to see are just the roofs. MR. HAUSNER-Well, this building is about 17 feet tall. So they're still going to have the benefit of that, and we do have, because of the nature of the drive through, and some parking in the site plan, you still have vehicular circulation all the way around, and the way the site plan also works, on the north side, that residential street basically terminates right into the drive entrance of this plaza. MR. PALING-Do you have any mechanical equipment on the roof? MR. HAUSNER-Yes. MR. PALING-Is it hidden? MR. HAUSNER-Yes, sir. It's in the center part of the roof, and it's behind the (lost word). - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. RUEL-It doesn't stick up? MR. HAUSNER-No, sir. MR. RUEL-I like that. Along the perimeter of the top of the roof there, I see some openings or something? MR. HAUSNER-Up in here? MR. RUEL-Yes, all along the top there, along the brick. MR. MACEWAN-Those are those lights you were talking about. MR. RUEL-Those are the lights. MR. HAUSNER-These are these goose neck lights that I was telling you about. Once you get up here and you look closer you can see them a little bit easier. MRS. LABOMBARD-Norbert, excuse me. Does this structure have a full cellar? MR. HAUSNER-At the present time, we're working with the doctor. He'd like to have some storage down in the lower level of his doctor's suite. So in these earlier stages we think that might happen. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I see also some downstairs for this retail, also, or is that just coming in? MR. HAUSNER-This is coming in. These are the color schemes of the building. We think it's a good idea to tell you guys right up front that we do a lot of our homework up front. We want you to be able to understand that 100% we're proud of it. We think that what we're trying to show you is something that you'll be proud of as well. So, those are the bricks. Those are efface colors. When that hip roof works, that'll be the shingle color of it. Here's another CVS that we did on Long Island. It has similar elements that you can draw from here. You can see the goose neck lights on there, if you take a real close look. You can also see from the dental, it's a perspective drawing, sometimes a little bit easier to understand than the two dimensional drawings are. I think that's about it as far as the building goes. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. MR. STARK-Nice plan. MR. PALING-I would like to go back to the site plan and talk about the part of the building where you have your drive through window, a dumpster and a loading dock, and considering that from a safety standpoint, especially thinking of a fire engine and things like that, does that have to be, all those three functions have to be clustered there at that one point? Is there any way at least the dumpster or something, because I'm visualizing slow moving dumpsters or someone backs up there to unload and they don't get out very fast, if there's any kind of need to get around them. MR. MACEWAN-But they said they were going to come and empty that dumpster after hours. MR. HAUSNER-Yes. That doesn't happen in conflict with the traffic in the building, the dumpster application, doesn't, and where it says, loading, it's not loading docks, it's loading doors, the gray doors. CVS' delivery scheme isn't a continual, you know, flurry of vehicles. There's one vehicle that comes there once a week, and that's how it's serviced. It goes there on an off hour basis. There is a little demarcation in your site plan that shows a loading area. The truck would pull up in that spot, putting the - 46 - ....- .-/' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) rear of his truck right next to the door, and there's still room for others to get by. MR. CARUSO-Mr. Chairman, can I address that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. CARUSO-That's one of George Hilton's comments, and in meeting with him today to resolve a couple of concerns that he had about full continuous access around that, we are able to, because we have some excessive parking, we are able to take and construct our compact area almost parallel to it and make this loading area a place for the tractor trailer to pull in, so that this area here would allow emergency access and cars that do not want to go into the drive through and that would still all be within the screening. It would have the rear of the tractor trailer still facing the loading doors area. As Norbert said, that is at grade. It's not a sub-grade or a loading dock, and that would resolve that problem. MR. PALING-Okay. You have a different traffic, through a drive in window for CVS, I would think, than you have for a lot of drive in windows, at a McDonalds or something like that. So that would mitigate it, just seeing what the three functions all piled on one another. MR. CARUSO-Well, the loading area is strictly so that during operation of the facility, if they do come and unload, that there's a place for them without clogging up the area, and that really infrequent, but we can provide for it to happen and not affect the function of the facility, and that was something that we discussed. MR. PALING-You said you deliver once a week, is that what you said? MR. CARUSO-Once a week. MR. PALING-Supplies come in once a week. MR. PEZNOLA-I can give you a little background on that. Chris Peznola from Berkshire. I work for the development company. We've been developing for CVS for about 20 years now. There's a couple of things that I wanted to explain. The drive through element is fairly new for CVS. Some of their competitors have been doing it for years. CVS has, I think, seven or eight in operation right now. They're experience to date has been that less than 10% of their traffic uses the drive through, but the element of having it and having it available makes people go there and walk in the front door. So it is not anywhere similar to a fast-food type of drive through. It doesn't have a speaker. It's all direct communication through the window, and the traffic that creates is very low relative to other types of drive through. MR. PALING-Then that would, by necessity, be where the druggist is, I assume? MR. PEZNOLA-It's in the back of the building where the pharmacy is. They typically layout the pharmacy and the storage area in the opposite end from the entrance and the idea is that you have to walk through the whole building to go to the pharmacy. So you end up buying something else. MR. RUEL-Is the pharmacy and the pharmacy and the doctor's location on the same level? MR. PEZNOLA-Yes, everything is on the same level. MR. RUEL-Because this plan here shows a lower level entry. - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. CARUSO-The CVS building is at grade. There's no basement in it. That area that you're looking at is for storage underneath the medical building. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, this is for the retail. It says, lower level entry, and it goes into the retail where this lobby is. MR. RUEL-Why does it say lower level? MRS. LABOMBARD-Why does the retail have a lobby? MR. HAUSNER-The basement is a lower level. That's all it means. MR. RUEL-That's the entrance for the lower level. MR. HAUSNER-The finished floor of all parts of this site are all at the exact same level. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. everybody, and then I'll said. Do you want to questions? Why don't we do one more round here for kind of summarize what I think we've all start, Craig? Do you have any other MR. MACEWAN-Nothing. MR. PALING-George? MR. STARK-Nothing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Fine, thanks. MR. RUEL-No questions. MR. PALING-Does the applicant wish to add anything to this? MR. PEZNOLA-I think there was one other question about their trucks, and they have one truck delivering to five stores once a week. So, he'll make a round, he does the store in Glens Falls. He'll come down here to Queensbury, and he'll go to three other locations. So there's one tractor trailer per week, and he delivers. MR. PALING-Okay. As I see this, we had a couple, three areas of concern. The one that lingers is the left hand turn. I think you have most adequately addressed the questions, and we can carryon with that. I see your reasoning on the drive through window, and I'd say you have lingering the left hand turn is the one. MR. HILTON-If I can give you Staff's comments, in light of what the applicant's presented. At this point, traffic and access concerns, I'm going to be waiting for any comments from Warren County and Paul Naylor. As far as that turn movement onto Main Street, that's acceptable if they want to do the six month review on that, that's fine with Planning Staff. MR. MACEWAN-When are they due to go to County Planning? MR. LAPPER-I went already. MR. HILTON-The site plan? MR. LAPPER-No, actually I went for the variance. Excuse me. MR. HILTON-The site plan would go May, I believe it's May 8th. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. - 48 - ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. HILTON-Water and Wastewater comments, I'm waiting for Tom Flaherty to give me any comments. I don't expect any major concerns there. The loading area in the back, John has addressed it. My concern there was if you had a truck next to a car and there was afire, you couldn't get a truck back there. The applicant has the ability to move the garbage area over, therefore moving the loading area over. That would create a lane that any fire truck could come in between any car that's using the drive through window. So I'm satisfied with that, if they revise the plans to show that, that's fine. MR. PALING-Okay. That's a third item, if you will, the moving of that. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. CARUSO-We agree with that. MR. HILTON-A turning radius of 45 feet is required for emergency vehicles. The applicant has indicated that they will provide that. In the event that they do remove those ingress/egress islands, we're going to be looking for some landscaping on those two islands in front of the building. Originally, we had talked about a limited landscaped island, due to the fact that emergency vehicles have to turn in there, but if those two ingress/egress islands are removed, I think Planning Staff could expect that those two islands on the south of the building be completely used as grass. MR. LAPPER-And that would be our preference. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is there a fire hydrant for the area? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HILTON-We also had a concern that Luzerne, at the north end of the site, the driveway opposite Holden Road shöuld be aligned. I was initially looking at some other plans that showed an offset. These plans have been corrected to indicate that they're aligned, and we're comfortable with that. One thing that we're looking for in this situation, the property to the west is zoned commercial at this time. Potentially, in the future, it could also develop as a similar land use, and we would want to connect this parking area to any future parking area to the west. I think the way that we can go about doing this is if the applicant provides easements near their entrance and exits indicating that they are to be connected, in the future, to any commercial land use to the west, and if that's feasible, if a development comes in in such a nature that it's possible, then the applicant would be required to complete that connection. As long as we have the easements, in this case, Staff's comfortable with allowing that on the plan. MR. LAPPER-We would want to make sure that any adjacent site's properly designed for traffic, in terms of their internal traffic flow, so it wouldn't mess up our, but we'll show these easements. MR. PALING-All right. That's just another item. MR. CARUSO-We have George's comments and we went through them with him and he is expecting us to show that on our plan that we submit. MR. PALING-All right. Well, this is a very fine presentation. We don't get an opportunity to see that much detail in most of these, and we thank you for that, and I think whatever problems we've got are solvable. So I think we'll work it out finally, when you come back. Next month you're due in. Good. - 49 - ,.-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. CARUSO-And we would like to come back next month and get final subdivision and site plan. We have a construction schedule we're trying to adhere to. MR. PALING-I don't see any problem with that. MR. HILTON-No, in submission date's already. MR. PALING-There'll be a public hearing and all associated with that. I don't anticipate there'll be much more on that. I don't know. We'll see. All right. Now we don't have to do anything. We've provided our comments. fact, everything's in tomorrow and they have line their for that. The information in MR. HILTON-Recommendations have been made. MR. STARK-Thank you very much. Craig just said, lets do that letter, I would like to address the Board. I want the Board to authorize Bob to write a letter to the Town Board requesting to change their Ordinance concerning islands and on ingress and egress, entrances and exits, to conform to DOT's recommendations, and also to have no timber curbing, but have all concrete or granite curbing. MR. PALING-Well, we've done the curbing. Roger, they're going to make that part of the, that's coming into the long range plan. MR. STARK-Okay. Well, anyway, I'll make a motion that we authorize Bob to write a letter to the Town Board. I will hand deliver it to them at the next meeting, concerning no islands. MR. PALING-All right. I'll tell you what. Just modify that a little bit. I'm about to tell you of a special meeting on May 7th. I'll bring it to the May 7th meeting for everybody's signature and send it over. Okay. If I can, the Fox Farm subdivision, now known as Indian Ridge, it's going to be a special meeting on May 7th, and what the purpose of that is that we are to review a conceptual site plan, okay. Now this is prior to, and we have to make a recommendation and actually a certification to the Town Board. Now they are looking to make this a P.U.D., a Planned Unit Development, and so we will be sitting with them. Now I would recommend highly, for your reading, in the Code 179-51 through 57. Okay, prior to the meeting, because that's, just four or five pages, whatever it is, but that contains advice on everything they'll be talking about, but they will be asking that this be a P.U.D., and it's up to us to review the site plan. MR. STARK-Okay. Forget that. going to make the letter up? What about the letter? Are you MR. PALING-My suggestion, I'll bring it to that meeting and we'll all sign it and send it in. It's not that far away. MR. STARK-How long does it take for the Town Board to change the Ordinance? MR. RUEL-Years. MR. PALING-A long time. I don't think there's any need to hurry it that much. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's any particular time frame on anything like that. They could act on it in a week, or they could sit on it a year. MR. PALING-I think it'll be a year before the, the curbing thing is in. We have two things in there. - 50 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/23/96) MR. MACEWAN-The 14th and the 21st, then, regular meetings. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. All right. Is everybody with me on the May 7th meeting? May 7th. I'm sure it's going to be 7 p.m., and I'm not sure whether it's going to be here or in the small conference room. I think it'll be here. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. MR. PALING-This is for Indian Ridge, formerly known as Fox Farm. MR. STARK-The one that there's a lot of controversy on. MR. PALING-Yes. The other thing you might want to note that the Ermiger Go Kart thing, they have a new sound study, and they also have challenged Jim's, I think you know Jim Martin's ruling on the setback. So that will be back to us, I believe. MR. MACEWAN-Why would they challenge it? MR. HILTON-I know, it's in their favor. MR. PALING-No. I'm sorry, I said it the wrong way, Jim's ruling has been challenged, which means they'd have to move the whole thing back. They're not challenging it, no. All right, and then the meetings themselves will be May 7th is one, and then site visits will be on the 18th, and the regular meetings will be the 21st and the 28th. All right. MRS. LABOMBARD-I may not be here May 7th. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 51 -