Loading...
1997-05-22 --/ QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 72-96 Glens Falls Independent Living Center 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 62-1-4.1 DISCUSSION ITEM Richard Schermerhorn 5. Cross Roads Park Site Plan No. 21-97 Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. 9. Tax Map No. 48-3-34.4 Site Plan No. 1-96 Hudson pointe - Phase III 13. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 148-1-2.1 Subdivision No. 5-1997 The Michaels Group 18. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 48-3-31, 33, 39.1, 39.2, 43, 44 Site Plan No. 35-92 Howard Carr - Queensbury Plaza 36. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Map No. 103-1-1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -' -----..' '-----' '--/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK DAVID WEST TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 72-96 GLENS FALLS INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER OWNER: SAME ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATIONS TO BUILDING FOOTPRINT, ADDITIONAL PARKING, REVISED STORMWATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 107-1996 SP 72-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/14/97 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 3.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled tonight. MR. PALING-This is a modification, so we don't have to have it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 72-96, Glens Falls Independent Living Center - Modification, Meeting Date: May 22, 1997 "The applicant is seeking to modify a previously approved site plan by adding additional parking and modifying site drainage. The additional parking will extend the previously approved parking area to the east on this property. The drainage plan will be modified by the addition of a drYWell in the new parking area and the elimination of one overflow pipe. Comments on the modification to the drainage plan will be provided by Rist Frost." MR. MARTIN-We, at a engineering concern, that's what I handed in. Staff level, thought this was primarily an so we referred it off to Rist-Frost, and out tonight, their comments. They just came MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, do you want to read this into the record, and we can all read it at the same time, please? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. RUEL-Before you read it, Jim, Rist-Frost has reviewed, what, site plan? Did they also review the revised stormwater drainage? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The letter's very brief. It says "Dear Mr. Martin: We have reviewed the propose modifications to the above referenced site plan and have no comments." So they thought the design as submitted was sufficient. - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. RUEL-It includes a new revised drainage plan. MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. That was mixed in with the Seeley letter. that confused. Okay. So there is really no comment there. Do you want to give us your name for the record? I got Okay. MR. MILLER-My name is Jim Miller, Miller Associates, Landscape Architect on the project. MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, do you want to tell us, by the diagram, what the changes are, please? MR. MILLER-Yes. Remember we were before you a few months ago, and what happened is, after the project got site plan approval when they were getting into architectural design, some of the interior uses and things firmed up a little bit more, and Paul Cushing, the architect, who's here tonight, he made some modifications to the building which basically increased the square footage of the building by approximately 1,000 square feet, and this new configuration is shown. It's shifted, actually, a little bit to the west. If you remember, this is the existing Helm House building, and we also talked about, at the time we came in, that our parking lot ended at a point in here, and we talked about, in the future, if we needed to expand it, we should expand it. Upon further investigation they decided they probably were better off doing it now. So the parking lot was expanded to the east to accommodate an additional 24 cars. We also, the expansion of the parking lot added some additional lighting, storm drainage and landscaping along that area, if you go to the grading plan. Roger was asking about the storm drainage. The storm drainage that's collected in this parking lot came along, and we actually had a pipe that discharged at a point down here, and we had a second pipe, if you remember, that picked up the drainage in the road and discharge, now it ran across the field, and we put it in a pipe to get the use of this portion of our site that's now a ditch. What we did is we extended the perforated pipe, and added an additional drYWell, continuing the same type of a system to pick up the water from that additional parking lot, and by extending it to the east, we were able to combine that discharge points. 80 rather than have two discharge points, we only have the single point. MR. MARTIN-You said that's an overflow pipe, Jim? MR. MILLER-Yes, it is. The site's very low, so the entire site's going to be filled with granular material that's going to be either crushed stone or sand material. So we're going to take advantage of that material. So all this pipe is perforated and all the inlets are in drYWell structures eight foot diameter by I believe they're four feet deep, and so the primary disposal will be infiltration into that sands. So the only water that will leave the parking lot will be overflow after all those structures are full. So for a 25 year storm, there'll be no overflow, and a minimum overflow for a 50 year storm. MR. PALING-Now they're well within the setbacks, with the addition to the building, they're still within all the setbacks? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's right. If there were a problem, it would be going to the Zoning Board first before it came here. MR. MILLER-Yes. We meet all the coverages and setbacks. MR. WEST-Where does the overflow go? MR. MILLER-Well, it discharges out into a gravel swale here, and then we have Halfway Brook runs across down the bottom of the site. - 2 - >,' '---./ '-, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) Right now, all the drainage from the road just sheets down across this, and so we'll take that water, primary flush, and infiltrate it. So we'll eliminate that direct runoff. So the only thing we'll have is the overflow, which will be at the lower end of the site. MR. WEST-Is a stormwater permit required? MR. MILLER-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions or comments? MR. RUEL-Yes. I just have a comment for the Planning Staff, pass on the information. In a case like this, it's advantageous to have a before and after type drawing. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. RUEL-Or somehow place on that drawing the areas that are modified. MR. MARTIN-That's a fair point. MR. RUEL-Okay. I appreciate it. MR. MILLER-Next time we'll do that. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. BREWER-I just have one question, and I understand what you're doing and it's done allover the place, but why do State agencies or whatever allow the overflow or runoff into a brook directly? I never could understand that. They do it up on Corinth Road with Clendon Brook. They do it with Halfway Brook. MR. MILLER-Well, if that's the natural drainage course, if it's just storm drainage, it doesn't require a permit. The only time it would require a permit is if it was some kind of an industrial site or, a permit, if you're over a five acre site, you have to file a storm drainage information packet with DEC and the EPA, but anything under five acres, you don't have to, and this is an existing drainage pattern. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand that, but I just never could understand that the County, in their infinite wisdom, take all the road salt and dirt, everything, and they just dump it right into a brook. I mean, I don't understand why they even consider doing that. MR. MARTIN-That is a shortfall with the regulations. agencies aren't held to the same standards that developers are often times. The public the private MR. PALING-Okay. This is a modification. There is no public hearing. There is no SEQRA. We can go right to a resolution. MR. MARTIN-Bob, before you do get off SEQRA, if that's the consensus of the Board, that there is not modification here sufficient to alter SEQRA, it's Staff's opinion there's not, but I just want to make sure you make that determination. MR. PALING-All right. Lets poll the Board. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-No problem. MR. STARK-No problem, except whoever makes the motion has to put that in there, that there's no significant. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's fine. MR. WEST-I'm okay. MR. BREWER-Fine. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATIONS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 72-96 GLENS FALLS INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To increase footprint by 1202 square feet, add 24 additional parking spaces, and a revised stormwater drainage system, all in accordance with plan dated 5/12/97, and there is no significant environmental impact, and no SEQRA is required. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Jim, I see Seeley's written a surprising letter. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was a surprise to everyone. Apparently, there's been some sort of miscommunication between the applicant and their engineer, of which we had no idea until this came over the fax machine. I think you can see the time was earlier this morning, and then we called Tom Nace. Apparently, now, he has been removed from the project, and we understand they've been in contact with another engineer. So it indicates a June date, and that's when we expect to see it. MR. PALING-Well then we should not open it, but let the whole process begin again, but I assume that the applicant's going to pay for the mailing, for the notification and all involved in this. MR. MARTIN-Well, in a subdivision, that's normally true. In site plan, the fee covers the cost for the advertising. That's what the intention is anyhow, and I would imagine there'll be another fee. MR. MACEWAN-(Lost words) paying for that, was that a newspaper ad or by mail notifying neighbors? MR. MARTIN-We do the notification with a site plan directly out of our office. We do the 500 foot, you know, we research out the names and do the mailing directly out of our office, and the intent is that the application fee, I believe, is $50 is meant to offset that cost. MR. PALING-And he'll have to pay that again? MR. MARTIN-Yes. - 4 - ,/' '....../ '''-../ -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. PALING-Good. MR. BREWER-And we will re-notify the neighbors? MR. MARTIN-Yes, definitely, because there has been such a lapse. MR. PALING-If there is anyone here for the Seeley application, I apologize. There will be no hearing tonight, but the complete process will be re-done when he comes back in again. MR. MARTIN-Right. application. It will go out like it was a totally new MR. PALING-Okay. On to the next one. MR. RUEL-Do we need a motion on this? MR. PALING-No. I don't think we need anything on this. MR. MARTIN-No. You don't need anything. MR. BREWER-So, actually it's a whole new application then. MR. MARTIN-Yes, it will be treated as such. Yes. MR. BREWER-So then we'll just throw this away then? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Because we're going to be getting a whole new set of plans. It'll be virtually from scratch. DISCUSSION ITEM: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN REQUEST FOR DEDICATION OF LAND IN LIEU OF RECREATION FEES - CROSS ROADS PARK SUBDIVISION. RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT MR. STARK-Okay. Jim, do you have any notes on this? MR. MARTIN-On the discussion item for the land? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, the only thing I would have to add is I'll bring your attention to, I believe you got a copy of it, the Recreation Commission letter dated April 30th. The Recreation Commission voted against the project. I don't know if they voted, but they were not interested in it, and in terms of the Town Board. I know this was discussed once at workshop, and it was not being too well received. I was there. I don't think any formal consensus was reached, but they didn't seem to be too enthralled. MR. RUEL-Did they give any reason? MR. MARTIN-Yes, the topography really doesn't lend itself to active recreation, was the general idea that, impression ~ was left with. MR. RUEL-Because George and I took a look at it, several weeks ago. MR. MARTIN-I mean, that's not to make a comment about, the property itself is in a lot of ways a nice piece, but in terms of active recreation, it's not. MR. RUEL-Yes, but it did look like a great green space area. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. Yes, from a conservation standpoint or a green area standpoint, it had a lot of attributes. - 5 - ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. RUEL-I've seen the Rec Commission accept other pieces that I thought were unworthy. MR. MARTIN-I was not at that meeting. I can't speak for them other than what's in the memo. MR. RUEL-We can't override them either. MR. STARK-Sure we can. We can make our own recommendation. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You could make your own recommendation. However, I will point out, the ultimate authority to take the property lies with the Town Board. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but not the Rec Commission. MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. STARK-Roger, Cathy's husband was at the meeting. He's on the Recreation Commission. Did he come home and talk to you about that, why they did it? MRS. LABOMBARD-I just said to you, I cannot believe that I forgot to ask him. MR. STARK-Rich, did you want to say anything? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only reason I brought it forward was because I had several recommendations from, well, Planning Board members, or not Planning Board members, but Jim and Harry Hansen. That's the only reason I brought it forward. MR. RUEL-I think it's great. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, otherwise, I'm going to develop that. MR. RUEL-You can't develop that, can you? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, probably two houses maybe, max, that's about it. MR. STARK-Tim, what do you think? MR. BREWER-I don't necessarily think that if we take land it always has to be active recreation land. MR. RUEL-That's right. MR. BREWER-It doesn't have to be. valuable as active recreation. Passive recreation is as MR. STARK-This is a large hunk of land. comment? Dave, do you have any MR. WEST-No. MR. STARK-Roger? MR. RUEL-Well, the same comment. I think it's an ideal piece of property for green space, and it certainly should be reconsidered by the Town Board. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I feel the same way. I think it's a nice piece of property, too. - 6 - ·...r ~ '-- . ---/" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I'll go with the Recreation Commission's opinion on this. MR. STARK-Okay. We don't have any public hearing, but Bob Paling has talked to The Michaels, about The Michaels donating the piece of property and tying it in with this one, and, Bob, do you want to say anything on that? BOB PALING MR. PALING-No. I think there's a misunderstanding there, George. I haven't talked directly to The Michaels about this, no. MR. STARK-Okay. didn't you? You talked to somebody in The Michaels Group, MR. PALING-Not about this, no. MR. STARK-Okay, on the other 43 lots up there? MR. PALING-Yes, not on this. I can't speak on this. MR. RUEL-I think he's talking about the other application, George, The Michaels Group application. MR. STARK-Did The Michaels Group indicate to you about the property being tied in with this piece or? MR. MARTIN-The last ~ heard it is informally, you know, it is not a formal offer or anything like that yet, that there might be some interest in conveying an adjoining parcel that would adjoin directly with this and essentially double the size of it approximately. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The information I received today was from John Goralski, and he made it clear that The Michaels Group recreation piece wouldn't be accepted, just because I guess a lot of the neighbors raised some concerns that they didn't want a park in their back yard, or a potential park in their back yard, because I guess land could be developed for a park. So he told me that the issue of their land was dropped, is what he told me this afternoon. Their part, I believe, is 25 acres. Mine's 15 acres. So it is a fairly large piece of land, which may, you know, be of some use some day. MR. MARTIN-Well, we have the applicant's agent here. Maybe he can, is that essentially true, Jon? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Yes. At the Zoning Board meeting, we had to get a variance for The Michaels Group project, for the clustering, the neighbors expressed that they would prefer to have it as homeowner's property rather than as a park. Dave Michaels had originally indicated a willingness to dedicate it as parkland, and in response to the neighbor's, we just said, okay, everybody and the Zoning Board preferred that it would stay as homeowner's property. So it would only be used for homeowner's association, and that would be acceptable to The Michaels Group. So that's where we left it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And for reasons, for me donating mine was because I knew they were thinking of it, and someone recommended that it would probably be good if we both did it. MR. RUEL-Are you saying that The Michaels Group, there's no - 7 - '--.-/ ~. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) dedicated land? MR. STARK-Okay. Jim, what do we have to do, either make a recommendation or not make a recommendation, just vote on it, that we recommend approval or not approval? MR. MARTIN-Yes, to accept or deny, and the law is funny written. I mean, you accept or deny, but like I said, the ultimate authority lies with the Town Board. MR. STARK-Right. We just make a recommendation to them. Rog, do you want to make a recommendation and we'll just vote on it? MR. WEST-Before we do, I just want to make sure I understand, what is, from a recreational standpoint, what can this land be used for? MR. RUEL-Green space. MRS. LABOMBARD-Green space. MR. WEST-Okay. Well, what does that do? MR. MACEWAN-Passive recreation. MR. RUEL-Just land that people walk on it, that there's some trails through it. MR. BREWER-Tranquility. MR. SCHERMERHORN-As a matter of fact, there's an old trail that goes from Blind Rock Road all the way to Glen Lake, which used to be heavily traveled years ago. There's an old logging road that goes through there that people still walk on. I mean, if anything maybe it'll be a walking path or a bike path some day. It would be a great use for that. MR. STARK-The Recreation Commission, they've got so much money and they don't do anything now anyway. So why not take the land? MR. WEST-That's right, but what are you going to do with it? MR. BREWER-Why do you always have to do something with it? I'll give you a perfect example, Hudson Pointe. There's 100 acres there, 90 some acres, and it's passive recreation. There's ski trails. There's walking trails. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that's active. MR. BREWER-How is that active? MR. WEST-Well, how do you recreate on something you don't go on? MRS. LABOMBARD-It's active because you can use, you use it for that, but I mean, why can't you just take the land and say, okay, land is getting scarce in Town. We have 15 acres. Lets take it. MR. WEST-That's conservation. That's not recreation. MRS. LABOMBARD-So what? MR. BREWER-Yes, but the definition of recreation can be so many, I mean, defined. MR. STARK-Make a motion, Rog, either to accept it or not to accept it, to the Town Board. Lets vote on it. MR. RUEL-Okay. MOTION THAT IT IS THE CONSENSUS OF THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE - 8 - ...- '"-'" '----' '---"~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) OFFER TO DEDICATE 14.81 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD, HUNTER BROOK LANE, BEING DEVELOPED BY RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, BE SET ASIDE FOR GREEN SPACE, PASSIVE PURPOSES, IN LIEU OF RECREATION FEES, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. West ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Jim, before we get off that, George, you're the acting Chairman on this matter? MR. STARK-Yes. Bob disqualified himself. MR. MARTIN-What I'll try and do is have a brief transmittal letter for that resolution developed for the Town Board, and if you could come in and sign it then as active Chairman, you know, from the Board to the Town Board, indicating your vote? MR. STARK-Tomorrow afternoon? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-And you'll pick it up from the minutes, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-97 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: LOT 3, HUNTERBROOK LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITEWORK. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.4 LOT SIZE: 1.31 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 21-97, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: May 22, 1997 "The applicant is seeking approval of an 8 unit apartment building on Hunter Brook Lane. The proposed building will meet the setback, parking and permeability requirements of the MR-5 zoning district. The applicant should be aware that a $500.00 per unit recreation fee is required to be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for this building. All comments from the Town's Engineering Consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application." MR. MARTIN-And then you have engineering notes on the next page from Rist-Frost, just a brief note. "Nace Engineering's response letter of May 15, 1997 satisfactorily addresses our comments. Signed William Levandowski, proj ect Director" And attached is that May 15th letter from Nace Engineering, and I think you can see the chronological order there. That was in response to a letter from Rist-Frost. MR. RUEL-So the engineering consultant comments have been taken care of? MR. MARTIN-Yes. - 9 - ----- - _/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. STARK-When Mr. Schermerhorn came in before for the other eight plexes, did he have to pay the recreation fee before he got the building permit on those? I don't recall that. MR. BREWER-Not building permit, CO, George. MR. MARTIN-No, it is building permit, but what happened was Rich was, again, made an offer for dedication of some land. I think at the time it was on Meadowbrook Road, to try and off set these fees, and there was some delay at ~ end in dealing with that. So we gave him some extra time on the fee. The land was denied. He's paid the fee. He's all caught up to date now. MR. STARK-Now suppose he pays the fee, and then the Town Board accepts the land in lieu of recreation fees. He gets a refund? MR. MARTIN-That's why we didn't have him pay the fee. We let the project go ahead. We did issue the building permit because we still had all sorts of control over the proj ect with various inspections and the final CO, and we did let it go ahead, and it worked out that the land wasn't accepted and Rich is caught up on his fees. MR. RUEL-Does the present resolution indicate that the fees have to be paid now? MR. MARTIN-Well, there were changes made to the law that require the fee be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit, and actually that is giving somewhat of a break to the developers. Before it was all paid at once up front, for the entire amount. In this case now we're doing it at the time of building permit, and makes more logic in that the fee is paid at the time that the demand for recreation occurs with the increased housing. MR. STARK-Tim, do you have any comments on this? MR. BREWER-Not yet. MR. STARK-Okay. Dave? Roger? MR. RUEL-The only question I guess it had to do with the recreation fees. They are indicated in the resolution, and if this recommendation goes to the Town Board as you indicated, if they should go ahead and reverse the Rec Commission, it really shouldn't be in the resolution, or it should be re-written. The resolution says recreation fees of $4,000 are to be paid at the time that building permit is applied for. Pending resolution of the Town Board's decision on the acceptance of the land, maybe those words should be added to the resolution. MR. MARTIN-That would make sense, and it would keep the resolution up to date. MR. RUEL-Yes, otherwise it isn't. MR. STARK-Cathy, have you got any comments? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-None. MR. STARK-Okay. I'm going to open up the public hearing now. If anybody's here wishing to speak for or against this project, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED - 10 - - '--" ',----, ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-And, Tim, you had some comments? MR. BREWER-No. I wanted to wait and see if there was any comment. The only comment I had is I think he's done a nice job with the buildings. MR. STARK-We need a SEQRA on this. That's the Short Form, correct? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-97, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR., 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, 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 22nd day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Roger, do you want to make a motion and put that in there about the fee. MR. RUEL-Okay. - 11 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-97 RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN, JR. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution dated 5/22/97, with the addition to Item Seven on Page Two, predicated on the Town Board resolution for acceptance or rejection of the dedicated land by the applicant. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 21-97, Richard P. Schermerhorn, Jr. for construction of a 8 unit apartment building; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/10/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map SP 1, SP 2, SP 3 all dated 4/27/97 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Rist Frost comments dated 5/15/97 3. Nace Engineering comments in response to Rist Frost comments dated 5/15/97 4. Rist Frost comments dated 5/16/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/22/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve - Site Plan No. 21-97, RICHARD P. SCHERMERHORN. JR. 2 . The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Site Plan approval process. 7. Recreation Fees of $4.000.00 are to be paid at the time a building permit is applied for. 8. Engineering Fees are to be paid prior to issuance of building permit. - 12 - '-' "---' '_"/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) Duly adopted this 22nd day of May 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 1-96 FINAL STAGE HUDSON POINTE PHASE III OWNER: HUDSON POINTE, INC. ZONE: P.U.D. PROPOSAL IS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE III - 14 LOTS CROSS REFERENCE: SP 25-94, SP 1-96 TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: 140+ ACRES SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And no public hearing is scheduled tonight. MR. RUEL-Why not? MR. MARTIN-This is Final. MR. PALING-We've had the public hearing. MR. RUEL-I see. They had their chance. MR. MARTIN-Essentially, there are no changes whatsoever to the plan for Phase III, as originally approved at the Preliminary Stage. MR. RUEL-If there had been some modifications, then possibly. MR. MARTIN-Then it would be up to you to decide whether that warranted another public hearing. MR. RUEL-Public hearing, yes. Okay. MR. PALING-Jim, do you want to give us the Staff comments on this. MR. MARTIN-Sure. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-96A - Final Stage Hudson Pointe Phase III, Meeting Date: May 22, 1997 "The applicant is seeking approval to construct the final phase consists of 14 building lots. This plan conforms to preliminarily approved plans for the entire Hudson pointe development. This site plan represents the final build out of residential lots within the Hudson pointe PUD. Subdivision regulations require that a final phase subdivision cannot be submitted until 60% of the homes in the previous phase have received certificates of occupancy. This regulation would not apply to this final phase of Hudson Pointe because it is a site plan for a PUD. However, the Planning Board has, in the past, conditioned approval of different phases of PUD's by requiring 60% of the previous phase to have received building permits. In this case the second phase of Hudson Pointe has 10 lots out of 48 (21%) that have received building permits. The Planning Board may wish to consider this when acting on this site plan. This site plan will be required to be filed and recorded with Warren County because new lots are being created similar to a subdivision." MR. PALING-Jim, what's the reasoning to exempt a PUD from that requirement? - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MARTIN-I don't know that there was any reason. I wasn't around when that Section of the Code was written. I would suspect that PUD's were given a little greater latitude, as they are planned communities. So George is right, though. These are his notes that, in the past, you've used that as a general guide or a general rule for dealing with moving on to the subsequent phase. MR. RUEL-So it's an optional thing. MR. MARTIN-Yes, at this point it's an optional thing for you. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then hopefully you'll tell us why it is that you want to take this route. MR. LAPPER-Would you like us to address that now? MR. PALING-Sure. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Miller, on behalf of The Michaels Group. The policy reason why, in a subdivision review, why the Town wants that, is because you don't want to have, if the developer goes bust, you don't want to have a subdivision where you have pockets of homes scattered, so you have some in Phase II, some in Phase III. You want to make sure that you get down with a Phase, for municipal services, for road maintenance, so that everything is clustered together, if you will, in case the development doesn't work out. Technically, Jim's absolutely correct that we don't have 60% with CO's, but we do, in Phase II, have 60% with contracts, under contract right now, and they're going to have a very busy summer of building. Because this is not technically applicable, we're coming to you as our response and saying that the indication that this project, Hudson Pointe, has done so well, and the proof of that is the next project that we're here for, on Bay Road, which is the next Michaels Group residential single family development. Because of the 60% of contracts, The Michaels Group is confident that Hudson Pointe's going to be sold out fairly quickly, and Dave's here to verify that. He just got here. So we don't think that that is something that you should have a concern about. Certainly The Michaels Group is not concerned about it. MR. PALING-Are you going to build the same type of home, the same price level homes in this Phase III as have been built? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Do you want to talk about the difference between Phase II and Phase III? DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Sorry about being late. Dave Michaels, President of The Michaels Group. The final phase is just a cuI de sac, 14 lots, Phase III, and right now, currently, there was some discussion about how many permits and planting. Somebody said there was only 10 permits taken on Phase II, but I think they missed the one third lots, because we have on record that we've gone for 26 permits already, and there's four sold on top of that, which would make a total of 30, that we haven't gone to permit yet, that are, you know, just pending sales right now, are doing blueprints and that kind of thing. So right now we're at 30 sales, of which 26 are permitted. We're at 62.8%, but I think what was done was the 10 permits that were referred to were on the half acre and the larger lots. MR. MARTIN-That very well could be true. MR. LAPPER-We also changed the phasing schedule at one point. MR. MARTIN-Yes. If you recall I think before the project had at - 14 - "--' '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) least two or three more phases in it, and the Board approved the modification to the phasing plan and the two largest phases by far were one and two. I think two was the largest. Excuse me. That 62% you mentioned a moment ago, is that building permits or just applications for? MR. MICHAELS-Of the 30 total, 26 are permits, and 30 makes 62.8%. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think what was missed, Roger, is, see Phase II has the lower end of the first access road there, right, I don't know what the name of it is, Dave? Kettles Way. I think that was mistakenly thought to be part of Phase I, but I think that whole lane of Kettles Way is sold. I think there's only one or two lots that exist that aren't sold. MR. MICHAELS-There's only one that's not permitted on Kettles Way. MR. RUEL-So that did change the requirement on Phase II, which threw you off as far as the percentage for Phase III. Is that it? MR. LAPPER-No. It threw them off when they were counting. MR. MARTIN-It threw us off when we were counting. I drove down through there last week myself personally and virtually all of Kettles Way is built out, or under construction. MR. RUEL-It's a nice looking area. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's beautiful. MR. MICHAELS-Thanks. Bob, on your question, the type of homes that we're going to propose are the same homes we've been building right along. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Good. There is no public hearing, but this is an Unlisted. Why is that? MR. LAPPER-Because SEQRA was already done with the PUD. MR. PALING-Yes. SEQRA's already done. So we don't have to do a SEQRA again. MR. MARTIN-No. It was done with the EIS on the PUD. MR. PALING-All right. TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-Bob, can I ask a question? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-I just had one comment. Tim Brewer, Candleberry Drive. I only have one concern, and I think The Michaels Group have done a great job with the PUD, but in the agreement with the Town, the open space recreation, as I recollect, the trails and the, whatever they were going to do down under the bluff, was supposed to be done in a certain period of time. It's not been done. How does that effect the contract? I mean, that's part of the agreement, and I don't want to be petty, but I mean, we worked hard and long with this thing, for two and a half years, both of us did, and it was part of an agreement, and I just think that the agreement should be upheld. MR. MARTIN-And just as a fine point on that, it's not that that's been ignored. MR. BREWER-No, I understand. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MARTIN-OSI has been responsible for finishing that down in the lower part we were talking about, and they have been fairly diligent in pursuing the completion of that, and they finally do have that permit, and I think Jim Miller's been processing that for them, and he can probably speak better than I can to the exact status of that permit. I thought the work was to begin any time now on the landing and the observatory. MR. PALING-Why don't we have Jim, for the record, address that. MR. MILLER-It is. My name is Jim Miller. OSI, the Open Space Institute, if you recall we were here with the site plans for Boardwalk, actually bridge crossing project, and we had to get a permit from DEC and the Army Corps of Engineers. We put construction drawings together last year, went out to bid, and there was a delay in getting the Army Corps permits. So work was not started last fall, and right now there's a contractor that's been selected, and the contract has been awarded, and they're just waiting for the water to subside and they're going to start any time now. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim, does that also include the trails and the finished work up on top? I know the parking lot's in and all that. MR. MILLER-Well, they were pursuing, I'm not sure exactly. I wasn' t involved in the trails, other than the layout of them. They were pursuing working with some groups, either the Audobon Society or the Adirondack Mountain Club to help them develop some of those trails, and I can't speak for that, where it is, but I know they were pursuing it. I don't know if they have a strategy to accomplish that trail. MR. RUEL-Was there a firm schedule for this? MR. BREWER-There was supposed to be. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There was a firm schedule, and what really threw the biggest delays were the permit delays with the Army Corps, and I remember there was a $20,000 limit on the expenditures to be made, and I think the bulk of that's going to be in this platform and observatory and walkway there. MR. MILLER-Yes. About 60 to 70% of that will be in this boardwalk. MR. MARTIN-Yes. What I might suggest is if the Board might say, require that the applicant report back and say 60 days or 90 days on the status of the boardwalk, to see how it's progressed, or maybe by then it will even be done, and you still have all sorts of latitude over the project, but I can attest that there has been consistent, diligent attempts to fulfill all the requirements of the agreements. MR. PALING-It seems as if it's going to continue, the way that ~ read what they're saying. MR. MARTIN-And I understand it's been an especially wet spring. MR. PALING-And cold. MR. MACEWAN-Do you anticipate any problems receiving the permits? MR. MILLER-No, we have the permit now. Yes, the permit was received over the winter, and obviously, they couldn't start then. So they're scheduled to start as soon as it's practical to get down there. Actually, a lot of the area where the trail would be, being in wetland a lot of that was partially under water. MR. MACEWAN-They're just basically waiting on the weather? - 16 - ',--, '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. WEST-Is that where the bridge goes? MR. MILLER-See, what happens in the wetlands, there'll be like a bark trail that will lead to it, and the bridge is up higher. So it'll be above the normal flood level, but because it's in a wetland, the trail, at certain times of the year, may be submerged. If we had a 100 year flood, the bridge would probably be submerged, too. MR. RUEL-And the boardwalk, too? MR. MILLER-A 100 year flood, probably. Everything down there would be under water. MR. MARTIN-That's why it had to be constructed in a certain manner, if that does happen that it doesn't pollute or disturb the area further. MR. MILLER-That's right. It's back out of the way. It was designed to be above the water level in the normal high flood stages, based on the information we got at the Feeder Dam. MR. MICHAELS-And just to add, too, talking with Dan with Open Space, he did ask me, recently, for contractors that would be a good bet for him to have bid the bridgework. So I know he's working on it. MR. MILLER-Yes. Actually, he was looking for contractors for the trails, too. I remember that discussion, also. MR. PALING-I think it sound satisfactory to me. okay with it? Roger, are you MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Would you like a report back in say like 60 days from like Jim Miller? MR. RUEL- Yes. certain day? How about on a quarterly basis, starting on a MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we just have this one last hurdle to go in that part of the, that's the last part, as far as ~ know, Tim, that's left to be fulfilled. MR. BREWER-The only thing that brought to my mind, Jim, it was in the agreement that this would be done before a certain amount of houses could be built, and it hasn't been done yet, and I just wanted to be sure that it would be done. MR. PALING-Yes. Then we could call for a status report at our meeting on July 22nd. All right. We need a resolution on this. MR. MARTIN-Well, it could be a part of your motion in the Final phase if you'd like. MR. RUEL-There is no resolution on this, is there? MR. PALING-No, I don't think so. MR. MARTIN-There is a form resolution. MR. RUEL-There is? Okay. Do you want a motion? MR. PALING-Yes, please. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-96A HUDSON POINTE, PHASE III - 14 LOTS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As written in the resolution dated 5/22/97, with the stipulation that the applicant report to planning staff by 7/22/97 on the status of trails, boardwalk, bridge, etc. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 1-96A HUDSON POINTE, PHASE III - 14 LOTS; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, received 4/30/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Map - C - Cover Sheet revised 7/26/94 Map - C1- Site Plan revised 3/9/96 Map - C3- Phasing Plan revised 3/7/96 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes Whereas, a public hearing was held previously concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 1-96A, HUDSON POINTE, PHASE III - 14 LOTS. 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MICHAELS-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS - 18 - '",---, '-..-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) GROUP OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NEXT TO CEDAR CT. TOWNHOUSES, WEST OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEVELOP A 43 LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 17-1997 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-31,33,39.1,39.2,43,44 LOT SIZES: 81.71 + ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, JIM MILLER, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled this evening. MR. STARK-Jim, do you want to read the notes to this? MR. MARTIN-Sure. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1997 Sketch Plan, The Michaels Group, Meeting Date: May 22, 1997 "The applicant is seeking Sketch Plan approval for a proposed 43 lot clustered subdivision to be located north of Cedar Court on Bay Road. The applicant has received an Area Variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to allow the development of this cluster subdivision which is usually not allowed in the SFR-1A zone. The 43 lots will have frontage on a loop road which will connect to Bay Road north of Cedar Court. The Town Highway Department has been given a copy of the proposed subdivision and is expected to comment during preliminary subdivision review. The Warren County DPW has submitted comments describing what information they will require during the review of this subdivision. County approval for the proposed connection to Bay Road will be needed from the Warren County DPW. A drainage and stormwater management plan will be required for preliminary stage review. Staff will review the plan to make sure that no increased runoff will effect adjacent properties after construction of this subdivision. The applicant will be required to pay a $500 per lot recreation fee prior to issuance of a building permit for each home in this subdivision." MR. RUEL-Did the applicant request any waivers? MR. MARTIN-We're at Sketch Plan now. It's basically a conceptual. I'm not aware of any waivers that are requested. MR. RUEL-At the Sketch Plan stage, two foot contour intervals are required unless you get a waiver. Grading and drainage plan is required unless you get a waiver, and the landscape plan is required unless you get a waiver. MR. MARTIN-Okay. The applicant's here to respond. MR. LAPPER-We submitted for conceptual, before preliminary. MR. MARTIN-They do have the two foot contouring. MR. RUEL-They have them? All right. MR. STARK-Roger, this is a sketch plan. very informal. I mean, you know, it's MR. RUEL-Yes. I know that, but I'm going by what's written in the document, what's required with a Sketch Plan, and if you don't have it, fine, but then you need a waiver indicating that if you don't have it, then it's required. That's all. MR. LAPPER-Roger's technically, you're absolutely correct. We wanted to get here conceptually to talk to you about it and make sure that this was something that the Board was comfortable with. We already had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance - 19 - --" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) to get before you. Jim Miller has done an awful lot of work to get to this point, but we haven't done a full landscape plan at this point. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think they even have a drainage plan of sorts here, with drYWells indicated. So I think the only thing they're missing that ~ can see is a formal landscaping plan. MR. MILLER-Yes, well, what we have, we've also, on that plan, we've shown buffer planting and things, which I can address, and the only other planting we'll probably need would be along the entry boulevard and the sign and maybe some planting on the loop road which, you know, we'd be happy to discuss, and we'll have that at preliminary, but primarily we wanted to address the buffer, the existing plants to be saved and the buffer planting that would occur around the neighborhood. MR. RUEL-I'm sure this'll be acceptable to most of the members. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, this is the same parcel that we talked about with Barber? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Wasn' t there some conversation, they got as far as Sketch Plan, didn't they? MR. MARTIN-I believe it did. MR. MACEWAN-The conversation dealing with wanting to save those existing hedges in there was part of it. The only question I guess I've got, I don't really understand, in the ZBA's variance, what is the 16 foot strip to be dealt with one way or another? MR. LAPPER-On the northern most part of the parcel, there's another access to Bay Road. MRS. LABOMBARD-Is that right behind that guy's backyard, that white houses' back yard? MR. LAPPER-Right. That's not how we're going to reach it with the new proj ect , and we assured the neighbors that Dave has no intention of ever using that as access. MR. RUEL-Is that their back yard? MR. LAPPER-Yes. DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Mike Webster's here, and Mike lives on Susan Place, and we've had some discussions with Mike and the owners of Susan Place, and their concern is that that's been a right-of-way to access the Barber property, and as a right-of-way, it's been used for other uses, you know, motor bikes and this and that kind of thing, and their concern they had, if we were proposing this project, that that right-of-way would not be used as a right-of-way any longer, and at the zoning meeting, we said, we're totally in support of that. We wanted it to either be forever green space and deed restricted so it can't be used for ingress or egress, just green space, or we were very open to, if everything was approved, etc., for the price of a dollar would be to transfer it to them in whatever type of entity they decided between themselves they would want to have it transferred to. So we said we're flexible either way on that concern of theirs. MR. MARTIN-Who owns that SO foot wide piece? Who owns that 50 foot wide piece that goes into Susan Place? - 20 - ----' --' .-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MICHAELS-It's part of the Dr. Barber property. MR. MARTIN-It is? MR. MICHAELS-That's how! understand it. right-of-way? You mean the 16 foot MR. MARTIN-This 50 foot piece right here. MR. STARK-Well, a public hearing isn't scheduled, but there are some people that are interested in this project, and I'd like to have some public comment tonight. It's not a formal public hearing, but if somebody wants to come up and speak, come up and voice your concerns about the project, and if you're in favor of it. MR. MARTIN-Just as an early comment from Staff, I think all through this process you've got to be very careful, and have carefully delineated the limits of clearing. I've had people in our office from the neighboring subdivisions concerned about the existing trees being left, and therefore it's got to receive very careful treatment as to what those limits are and be carefully addressed. MR. BREWER-I just Subdivision of land, subdivisions of 35 subdivision shall. want to address the comment to Staff. it says, street entrances to subdivisions and lots or more at least two entrances to the MR. LAPPER-We're complying with that. MR. BREWER-You've got two roads? MR. LAPPER-The two roads are the boulevard, yes. MR. MARTIN-The boulevard is the alternative method for that. MR. LAPPER-If it's acceptable to the Board, we would like to give a brief overview of the whole project, before you open it up for public comment, so that we can just tell you where we're coming from. MR. RUEL- I have one question for the Planning Staff. Why didn't we have a public hearing at this time? MR. MARTIN-Because it's not required at Sketch Plan. You only have public hearing at preliminary. MR. RUEL-It seems to me that we've gotten bitten in the past by reviewing certain cluster or PUD arrangements without public hearing, and lo and behold, there was an awful lot of static from the public, after we had the hearing, but prior to it, we made recommendations, unbeknownst to us about the resistance on the part of the public. It seems to me that in the cluster and PUD arrangements that there should be a public hearing, at any stage, because it's critical. In this case, I know Glen Lake is close by, and it seems to me that we have some similar problems that we had at Indian Ridge, where you have a lot of septic systems, and I don't know what the water table is, but you have the possibility of some of this septic system going into Glen Lake. MR. MARTIN-I understand what you're saying, Roger. My only response is that remember that Sketch Plan is very informal. If you recall it's not even a stage at which you give an approval. Your resolution tonight will be a recommendation whether they proceed or not proceed to preliminary, and that's the extent of it. It's not even a formal approval. MR. RUEL-AII right. Then you feel that at preliminary stage then - 21 - '--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) you have a public hearing, and then. MR. MARTIN-That's where, usually, the bulk of the work is done. The SEQRA is done, and you get into real detailed design about drainage, lot layout, landscaping. MR. RUEL-Yes, but wouldn't it be advantageous, though, to have public hearing at the beginning, because if there ~ a lot of resistance, then it would change things when you arrive and get to the preliminary stage. MR. MARTIN-All we can do, as Staff, is what's in the law. It's not in the law, but if you, as a Board want to. MR. BREWER-Didn't we make that recommendation that we were going to do that? MR. RUEL-Yes, we did. MR. STARK-Public comment, but not formally. MR. RUEL-No. We made a recommendation that PUD and cluster and possibly some other things, that we should have a public hearing, initially, in order to get the reaction, in the event. MR. MACEWAN-I think when that whole idea started, we were talking about doing re-zoning requests. MR. RUEL-Yes, well. MR. BREWER-This has been granted a variance so that they can cluster. MR. STARK-Jon, do you want to get up and speak on this? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Just to sort of give you the setting, we required a small variance because this property, Dave has amassed four different parcels from four different owners in order to get a total of 85 acres. Because of something unusual in the zoning map, there is a, Jim can show you on the map, but there's sort of a "V" parcel, where the zoning line between the Single Family Residential One Acre zone and the Rural Residential Four Acre zone cuts right through the middle of the parcel, in a really strange shape, and it just goes based upon the old property ownership lines from the tax map, and it has nothing to do with land use. MR. RUEL-On a percentage basis, what percentage of the total property required a variance? MR. LAPPER-Very little in terms of the acreage. It's just that the area where you see the houses, about half of that was in the cluster zone. We could have clustered all the rest in the back, but the back is within 500 feet of Glen Lake, and the back is where there are wetlands and there are a lot of hills. So it would have required a lot of cutting and filling, just in terms of good land use, and just to, on a tangent, we had about SO people at the public hearing. Many of them were neighbors in the existing Michaels Group subdivision next door in Cedar Court. Many of them were Suzanne Court that were concerned about the issue, like the right-of-way that Dave just discussed. We had a two and a half hour hearing last month at the Zoning Board. The neighbors, most of them said we have some concerns because we don't understand the project yet, but we're very comfortable with The Michaels Group because of what they've done and we've bought in their project next door and we're comfortable with that. At the end of this, the Zoning Board unanimously approved it, which we were very pleased with, but my point is, you're concerned about public information, and we did have about SO neighbors at this meeting, and it went on - 22 - ----./' '-' '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) for a long time and we addressed their concerns. So that doesn't mean that we've made everybody's concerns flat. There are engineering issues that we have to discuss, and we've got to go through the process, but it's on the table, and they came and talked about it, and that's why we got a resolution that's so lengthy that's in your notes from the Zoning Board, and that's why the issue that you raised with Rich Schermerhorn, that's where the issue was discussed, in terms of whether we were going to dedicate the land to the Town and the neighbors and the Zoning Board said, gee, it would probably be better as homeowners association property, and that was another issue that was settled at that meeting. So the neighbors have already had substantial input, and just compared to other projects controversial re-zonings. This is not a re-zoning at all. This is a residential project, in a residential zone, and most of this 85 acres clustering is permitted. It just didn't make sense, based on the topography, to put the homes in the back where we had some wetlands and a lot of hills, and it would have been a lot of cutting down trees. It's being developed in the area that's the field that's been farmed. So it just seems the most appropriate place on this site to be putting the homes. It would probably be best for Jim to go through the details of the design. MR. MILLER-What I'd like to do first let Dave talk a little bit about part of the concept of this project, the type of housing, being adjacent to Cedar Court, and talk about the housing type or development first. MR. MICHAELS-And before we get started, as Jon said, we did have a lengthy public meeting for the zoning process, and a lot of issues were brought up, of which, in submission of the Sketch Plan, we took a lot of those concerns into effect and tweaked the plan, you might call it, just from that input that we had there and we wanted to address some of those things tonight, but what ended up with, as far as the density goes, we're not asking for any additional allowed density. All we're doing is taking the allowed densities for the different zones and clustering, and walking the parcel many times, we felt, with Jim, that we could cluster the housing in the field area and basically leave everything pretty much undisturbed. It's a very flat field, and around the entire perimeter we're going to be able to keep a very solid wooded buffer. What we envision for the project are 43 detached single family homes. They're going to be on 70 foot wide lots. We consider those a small lot, but not tiny lots. The target market, we have two sample renderings on top, the New England architecture, the homes would probably range anywhere from 14 to 2200 square feet, all with garages, all with full basements. They're going to be marketed primarily to move down empty nesters, people that want, certain people want single families versus townhouses, is what we've found, and they want maintenance provided, and nobody's been really doing that in the marketplace, and we've had a lot of people in the Town that approached us on different projects and asked us, gee, it would be nice if we could have a detached single family with the maintenance provided, are you ever thinking of something like that? So we got a lot of local interest, and that's what basically made us come up with this plan. So this plan is going to include full maintenance through a homeowners association for the front yards and side yards. The rear yards will be up to the individual homeowner. They can either have the maintenance contractor that's taking care of the HOA do it for a certain fee if they want it done, or they can maintain it themselves. There'll be deed restrictions that they'll have to have minimum maintenance in their rear no matter what, but we felt this gives individual homeowners flexibility that may want to have gardens, that may want to have decks, sunrooms, patios, Japanese gardens, etc. We're going to do it in the theme of a New England theme, covered porches, full basements, typically I really see probably two car garages would be the norm. The house widths will be anywhere from 40 to 46 feet. It still will leave - 23 - '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) almost 30 feet in between structures. We plan on heavily landscaping the homes. All our subdivisions in projects that we do, the houses are landscaped as well as the community itself. Going in we're going to have a divided boulevard done very similar to how we did it at Hudson pointe, a nice entry with a lit sign. We see some lighting coming in on the entry. One of the neighbors brought up they don't want to see really high lights that would end up to be, you know, could be a nuisance to them in the evening, whatever. We thought that was a good idea. So we thought we'd keep more like lampposts in front of the home going in. The project has a large number of pine trees, Christmas trees. It was almost like a Christmas tree farm, and the way we're building this, we're really not going to have to disturb too many of those trees, and the ones that are there, there's so many of them, we plan on using a tree spade and re-Iocating them in some of the buffer areas that Jim will go into, to really create a nice street scape and a nice theme throughout the community. There will be like a village green in the center island area. There is a hedgerow going through there that now that already exists, and that'll be able to pretty much stay intact, through the very center of the center village green, and what we envision there is maybe a gazebo and picnic tables, that kind of thing, passive activity. Price range of the homes will probably average some place in the $140 to $160 range as far as the average selling price. So it's really, you know, a move up, really nicely done community, and we think that the impact of the adjoining neighbors, we're going to be able to keep a very good buffer, and I'd like to have Jim go into that more. He has photography a few other things that we can get into. Just a few things, because he wasn't at that meeting, one of the issues that was brought up was that 16 foot right-of-way, and I already said our position on it, depending on the Board, but we're very amicable, as far as working with the people on Susan's Place, whether we transfer that property to them if we were given final approvals, or to make sure that it is deed restricted as forever green. Another concern was, if we have construction ever going on, would we use that as an access way, and the answer to that is, no. The only time we're using it is we may use it now. We've already used it once to go in just with a backhoe to do test holes for perc tests and that kind of thing, but once the approvals, our major infrastructures going in, we would not use that at all for construction purposes. There is a home already at the, where the entrance is coming in. Originally there was just a SO foot width, part of Dr. Barber's going in to Bay Road, and to make a nicer entrance and to have plenty of room for the divided boulevard, we acquired the single family residence that exists there now, and our plan would be to remove that home. Whether the home could be salvaged and moved to another lot, I don't know that, but in our plans, that home would be taken out, but that really allows a nice entranceway going in. We're on a little bit of a curve, and we feel we can really landscape it up. There was some discussion at the zoning meeting on some minimum distances to the property line of Cedar Court which Jim put in the design. We added some additional buffering, directly to the residents that are along Bay Road, which Jim can go into. We made sure every home was at least 70 foot at the building line. That covers a lot of what we've tried to accomplish. I'll let Jim get into it a little bit. MR. MILLER-This first drawing is a 100 scale plan that shows the overall property, and to show you the extent of the green space, all of this green area back here is the property, a little under 85 acres, and you can also see that this area in the front, I think it was around 28 acres, is where the development would be located. Part of the reason for that is, you know, we do have two foot contours on this front portion of the site. The rear portion, since it's not going to be developed, it's just 10 foot contours, USGS, but if you look at the contouring here, there's a large ridge that runs right across the property here, and it's fairly steep, and drainage from the site goes to the west here, and to the south, - 24 - -' - "--' '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) and then along, actually some of it runs along the back of Cedar Court, but basically it goes down by the pond behind Rich Schermerhorn's development. Right now, this is the clearing in here, the Christmas Tree farm that Dave talked about is in here, is in this area, and it's Douglas Fir, Spruce, there's a lot of white pine that has grown in wild and there's some balsam fir in there, and they range in size from four feet to twelve, fifteen feet. So, on the other plan, I've shown that. We're going to try to transplant those, as Dave said. Right now, most of this is clear. There's a piece of woods that comes up in here. There's a low point from this, from the center of this village green area that drains down toward Cedar Court, and then down where it connects with the other drainage area. So there's a piece, trees in here. There's a hedgerow that runs across the site in this area and then another that comes across here. Most of this is fairly scrub growth. The best, you know, this is fairly mature woods in here, and this portion that we're showing in here has some large pines and it's really a nice buffer, but as you get further down the property, it becomes more scrub than anything else. So, you know, the concept was to come in and develop that field and maintain as much of that woodland as possible. So there would be about almost 60 acres in the back that would be Homeowners Association property that wouldn't be developed. We've taken the developed portion of this and enlarged it to 50 scale to gain a little bit more detail. One of the discussions had to do with the entry onto Bay Road. We have been in contact with the County and we know that a permit has to be obtained. There were some concerns about site distance and if you look at the site, the existing house that's there is here. It's sort of a, it's got a gambrel roof, white siding, and there's a steep bank right there where they had some large trees at one time, and most of the sight distance problem in that driveway has got to do with that bank. As part of the entry construction, that would all be graded off, and we feel the sight distances are adequate. So we have been in contact with Warren County and will continue to do so and obtain a permit for that. Basically, Cedar Court, I believe, was 48 units, and this is very similar. If you look at the two side by side, it's almost a mirror image, but because they're single family, they're 43 units, and as required in the Zoning Board meeting, all the lots are a minimum of 70 feet at the front building line, which gives us a minimum of a 50 foot building envelope by SO foot deep. The lots are typically 100 feet deep. The leach fields are located to the rear of the lots in the common areas. The septic tanks will be located in the yard areas giving the homeowners maximum use of their yards for whatever type of gardening, and the leach fields would be part of the homeowners association maintenance. You can see the wider green trees are trees to remain. We tried to keep clearing to a minimum. We obviously had to cut across in here and develop some of this, but we tried to maintain as many of these trees as we can. We've maintained the best portions of the hedgerows, and then we've also indicated, as I talked about on the other plan, is the Christmas Tree farm is in this area, and one of the discussions at the zoning meeting was to maintain Lot 25, 100 feet to the property line. These show some of the townhouses on Cedar Court right here. There are none in this area where the access road comes down. These are the first ones. So you can see this was our closest area. So we've maintained 100 foot buffer, and then there was a requirement for an 80 foot buffer in this area. So we've maintained the separations as discussed at the zoning meeting. In addition, this darker shaded area, this was part of a Christmas Tree farm that didn't show up on the survey, the original survey we had. These might have been planted after or something, it showed all this as open field. What we would do is we would leave all that vegetation within there up to the area where we needed to clear for our leachfields. In addition, some of these would be transplanted. This is homeowners association land on each side of the boulevard. There was some concern from the neighbor, both to the north and the south. So all the existing trees that are in here now, there's - 25 - '-,.< (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) some large pines in here, and the pines come down here, and there's some groups of pines in this area. All these would be preserved. In addition, these other trees would be transplanted in here to re- forest some of these areas to maximize the amount of buffers where this driveway comes through. You can see, here's one house in this area, and then there's a second house that sits back in here, and then to the north there's, the houses up there along Bay Road. In addition, there was some concerns about the lots and clearing to the property line. We pulled those back so the homeowners association property has a minimum of 10 feet on the edges, and you can see in most cases it's much larger, where there'd be no clearing along those sides. So a lot of the growth on the edge of the woods that's in there now would remain. MR. MICHAELS-That's heavily wooded existing tree line right along there that won't have to be disturbed. MR. MILLER-Yes, I have some photos I can pass out. MR. MACEWAN-What kind of mechanisms do you guys propose to put in place so that you'll keep those tree lines and that vegetation there in the future? MR. MILLER-It would be in the homeowners association. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and the Board gets a copy of that document prior to final approval. MR. MILLER-One of the other concerns that was discussed was storm drainage. As I talked in the overall plan, the natural drainage pattern here is to the southwest, and some of it comes down off the field through this ravine here and comes along the back, low area in the back of these units at Cedar Court, and some of it comes down, you know, more directly west, and then also finds its way down and goes behind Cedar Court. So what we've done, if you look at the plan, we've done some preliminary grading on the roads where you see where we've indicated high and low points around the road. We haven't done a complete grading plan at this point. If we get through the Sketch Plan, at which point we will, but what we're going to do is the road, from Bay Road, will rise up. As a matter of fact, there's a mound in here we'll cut down so this will end up being a berm along this neighbor's house here, and there's some small pines and things growing there. So actually part of this road here won't even be visible from this house, because of this grading, and it will come up to a high point, and then basically the road will then drop, and we're going to create the low point along the road to the rear of the property, so that we'll be able to take all of our storm drainage, which we're looking to use a system similar to Hudson Pointe, but the soils here are not quite as sandy. The perc rates we had were around four to seven minutes in most of the developed areas. We're going to use a series of drYWells along the road, connected with perforated pipe, to get as much infiltration as possible, and then we would have an overflow into a detention basin back in the west part of the property. So what we want to do is take the drainage, instead of direct it toward Cedar Court, take it to the west, and where we'll have a controlled discharge that would direct the stormwater behind Cedar Court, eliminating some of the concerns of increased drainage along this property line. MR. MARTIN-Could I stop you right there for a minute, Jim? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to need a SPDES permit for the discharge? MR. MILLER-Tom Nace, our engineer, is here. - 26 - ,......-- -- '-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) TOM NACE MR. NACE-We will look into it. I do not think, at present, that we do, but if we do need it, we will obtain it. MR. MARTIN-All right. While you're on the grading for the road, so we don't get into a situation like we did over in Hunterbrook Lane, where there were grade changes of like 13 feet from the natural grade to a proposed grade. From mY point of view, I'd like to see the natural grade followed through the course of the road to the extent possible without a huge, you know, shifting of the elevation of the road. Is that going to be done? MR. MILLER-That's going to be, it's going to be pretty close. What we try to do when we do the grading is we try to put the road in in such a way that the road grades are set so that when the houses are constructed, we've got a slope from the house out to the road, in order to collect all of the runoff from the driveways and the front of our house into our storm system. So there may be some areas where we end up filling a bit depending on the adjacent property, but we try to minimize cut and fill as much as we can. This site is fairly level, and we've got some cut in here where we've got a ridge, but mostly if you look at the high and low points, what we're doing is just sort of creating some high and low points to collect the runoff because the site is fairly flat. MR. MARTIN-Well, my point for asking is I think given the character you're trying to create here, that could enhance the character of this if you could avoid the cuts and filling. MR. MILLER-It's going to be very similar to what we tried to do at Hudson pointe project. MR. MARTIN-Okay. How about depth to the water table? What have you found so far? MR. NACE-There was some preliminary soil testing that had been done by Charlie Main, back several years ago. We assembled that and went out and did, a couple of weeks ago, three weeks ago, did some additional test pits with Charlie and with Brian Fear so he could get a first hand look at the soils. We picked, generally for the test pits, we've picked the worst areas, okay, and in the worst areas seasonal high groundwater indications or mottling varied between 36 and 60 inches. In the better areas, we did not hit mottling in seven feet deep hole. MR. MARTIN-You mean your holes were seven feet deep? MR. NACE-Yes, correct, seven plus. MR. MARTIN-That was a good time of year to do it. MR. NACE-Yes. In none of the holes did we actually find standing water, even where we found mottling up at 36, 48 inches. It's unclear, from looking at it, whether that mottling is from present conditions or may have been conditions, you know, thousands of years ago. Because right now I don't know, or at least when we did it, up in this area, the groundwater is as high as I've ever seen it. MR. STARK-Okay. public comment? Jim, do you think we should possibly just take MR. MARTIN-Definitely. MR. STARK-I mean, now. Now would be a good time. Rog, lets take the public comment, and then if you have questions for these fellows afterwards, okay. - 27 - -~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. RUEL-Okay. It's relevant to what they were talking about. MR. STARK-Go ahead. MR. RUEL-Get an answer now. lampposts at each lot? All right. The lighting will be MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. RUEL-AIl right. Do you intend to have sidewalks? MR. MICHAELS-Sidewalks in the community? No. MR. RUEL-No. Now this boulevard, will you make that a temporary road, initially, for the movement of construction equipment, etc.? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. RUEL-And what's the schedule on that? How soon will you do that? Initially you'll use that 16 foot road up north, right? MR. MICHAELS-No. We would not. remove the house. The first thing we would do is MR. RUEL-That's the first thing you're going to do, then? MR. MICHAELS-Is remove the house, and that's going to create our ingress and egress for the entrance, and end up doing the infrastructure. MR. RUEL-Okay, and I had a question for Planning Staff. Would the boulevard meet the requirements for two access roads? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-For safety requirements? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's an alternative method. MR. RUEL-It does? Okay. MR. MARTIN-You are going to need a phasing plan for this, though, because it does exceed the 35, for phasing. MR. MILLER-But we had actually discussed that. What we would like to do, since we're just slightly over and it's a single loop road, we'd actually like to ask for a waiver on the phasing and see if we could develop as a single phase. MR. MARTIN-There's a waiver. MR. RUEL-Question about village green. That's a great area. That's where all the septic systems are, right? Where are the back yards? I mean, if I live in Lots One through Nineteen, where's my rear yard then? An open area or what, can I fence it in? MR. MILLER-If you look at the plan, you can see the building envelope that's created, the maximum building envelope. So actually your rear yard would be the area beyond the house. I mean, that just shows the rear setbacks. The house is built up on the front lot line. MR. RUEL-So it's a very short rear yard. MR. MILLER-Well, the intent is for people who are looking not to have a lot of maintenance and still have a small garden or whatever. - 28 - · .........../ --- ---./' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. RUEL-A question for Mr. Michaels. You mentioned about maintenance, can you elaborate? What kind of maintenance would you provide for these lot owners? MR. MICHAELS-Well, it'll be the homeowners association. So what they'll end up maintaining will be all the green space, okay. The entry boulevard, they'll handle the lighting, the electricity or lighting. We would plan on irrigation, you know, a sprinkler system for the boulevard going in. They would handle the snow removal for all the homes. They would handle the. MR. RUEL-Not the driveways? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, driveways and walks, and they would handle the maintenance of the lawn areas, in terms of spring clean ups, fall clean ups, fertilization and mowing. For the front elevation and the way, you know we have to get in the final architecture, but I see it going down at least the sides, and then we may have some kind of decorative privacy fence that establishes that breaking point to the rear yard, and then in the rear of the yards it would be, you know, they'll still be good sized rear yards for them to do what they want to do. That will, again, be deed restricted so they can't do certain things that may be a negative for their adjoining owner, of course, but the rear of the yard will be up to them to maintain, but if they want maintenance, which probably a fair amount of people will just as soon have their rear yard maintained also, there'll be some mechanism in the HOA, where they can, or they can go privately with the same vendor for an additional amount per year and get the whole yard maintained. MR. RUEL-Okay. Just one last question. We drove in that narrow road in back of those homes, and then we went into an open area. Can you show me where that open area is? MR. MILLER-What you did is you came down here and you came out into this open field. So what you saw, here's a hedgerow across here. You saw that field right there. MR. RUEL-So everything else then has to be cut? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. MR. MILLER-No. This is all open too, Roger. MR. RUEL-It is? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. We just didn't see beyond it, Roger. MR. RUEL-AIl right. Our driver was afraid to go any further. MRS. LABOMBARD- I have a question. Does each lot have its own septic or are you sharing any septic systems? MR. BREWER-They're sharing a few. MR. MILLER-Each lot has its own septic system. MRS. LABOMBARD-And they're sharing the leachfield. MR. MILLER-Some are two on one field. MR. RUEL-There's no more than two, though. MR. MILLER-This is, if you look over, as you walk over from Cedar Court and walk through the woods, you look across and what you see here is the hedgerow that we're saving in the middle. MR. RUEL-I see. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MARTIN-Is the septic system anticipated to be maintained by the HOA? To hold the tank in the leachbed. MR. MICHAELS-The tank, that has to be thought out. That will either be the responsibility of the homeowner or the responsibility of the HOA. The tank will be put on the individual homeowner's property. MR. MARTIN-That's why I asked. MR. MICHAELS-The septic field will definitely be an HOA issue, the field itself, but I think what we'll do is make it up to the individual's responsibility to maintain the tank, and there again, what we could do is put in the deed restrictions that they agree every so many years they have to make sure they pump it. That kind of thing. MR. MARTIN-I Ask that question because we, the last one we had one of these on was Sherman Pines, and I think we came to the conclusion that was a good idea because the bed is only going to be as good as the tank maintenance, and if you get some guy who likes bacon every morning and likes to dump his skillet down the drain, he's going to cause his neighbor fits. MR. BREWER-There was a regular cycle for that to be done, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We had regular maintenance, like every three years or something we built in, and just as a final comment, before you get into the public section, how soon do you anticipate having the HOA agreement in draft ready for the Board to look at, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Usually, what we do is we have to get the final approval, site plan, subdivision, and then immediately I do the homeowners association document. MR. MARTIN-I haven't read the regulations in some time, so you may know better than I, but I thought there was a requirement that had to be submitted to the Board prior to final approval, a draft of that? MR. RUEL-Yes, I read it somewhere. MR. LAPPER-That's not a problem. MR. MARTIN-The reason why I asked is because I think looking at a particular project here, it's got to have a lot of HOA treatment with it, and a lot of things are going to be tied to that document. So it might be a good idea to review that and maybe even. MR. BREWER-Have a final copy of it before we approve it. MR. MARTIN-Right. Because you're going to have a lot of restrictions built into that that are going to be tied to the design and so on, and it might be a good idea, just so it's all tied together. MR. BREWER-Just a pet peeve I have. Why do you have a detention pond? Isn't there another way to put it into the ground? MR. MILLER-We haven't done the stormwater report. Like I said earlier, the infiltration rate of the soil is one inch in four to seven minutes. So it's substantially slower than say Hudson pointe. Our primary goal is going to be to infiltrate it, but normally when you're designing something in a system like this¡ you're looking at a SO year storm. So typically in a so year storm occurrence, at that slow a rate of infiltration, you're going to get some overflow. So what we try to do is just accommodate that overflow, and for most of the normal storms. - 30 - '-" '-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. BREWER-Why couldn't you spread it out, though, rather than gather it? MR. MILLER-Well we are. I mean, if you look at the number of drYWells and the amount of perforated pipe we're using, we're infiltrating it throughout the site. MR. BREWER-I guess what my point is, Jim, is if you create a low point, it's naturally going to go there. Rather than infiltrate up here, it's going to go to the low point and create a pond. MR. NACE-One of the things is, we are, as Jim pointed out, where we get it into the ground, we're trying to spread it out and my philosophy of stormwater management is to keep it as close to natural conditions as you can, and I think we're going to accomplish that with the infiltration spread out, but there does have to, these soils, it's not like Hudson pointe. Hudson Pointe we had real good soils. We had, you know, 60 feet plus to ground water. So we always were assured of good conditions and being able to get rid of that. In a place like this, it's incumbent upon us to provide some overflow for that 50 year, 100 year storm to have somewhere to go, okay, and having, I don't want to call it a pond, because what it is is really a low basin that can fill up. It won't be a typical pond where it's going to be a mud hole. Okay. It'll be a pond where, in normal times, it's a basin, okay, that will normally be grass covered on the bottom, okay, and a lot of people make the mistake of bringing the water into a basin and making it flow across the ground to get out of the basin. What I normally do is bring it in by pipe and take it out by pipe and let it, when I really need the basin to function in a 100 year storm, let it come up through a grate in a structure to fill the bottom of the pond and then go back out through the grate. So normally the pond will be dry. It can be maintained. It'll be just a low area, grassy area that is available to take that excess water when we need it. MR. RUEL-It's a safety valve. MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-I'm going to put on my unrealistic, idealistic planning hat. I'm leaving tomorrow. Tomorrow's my last day, so nobody will listen to me anyway. I think, and I've said this before, especially in the type of community that they're trying to create here, and the quality work that The Michaels Group has proven to do in the past, I would treat this thing as not a problem but as a plus, and treat it as an amenity to the project, and since it is on HOA property, it can be their maintenance responsibility. It would be very nice to have a pond in a setting like this, and if you could work out something in the HOA agreement for the maintenance of that and liability and all that, it would be an asset to the project. MR. BREWER-If that's what they create, but I guess what I'm thinking of Jim is a gathering of water, and letting it set there and then dissipate and then another storm, you create another pond, and it comes and goes. MR. MARTIN-I'm the first one for infiltration. I think it's great, but I think we've got to be careful not to push it too much, because case in point, Queensbury Forest. They took retention ponds out and really forced the infiltration there, and physical conditions weren't ideally suited to that. Here's a case where maybe this might be a good thing. I think we've got to get into more design and review before we know that, but my point being, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world, especially if it could be landscaped, and treated in a proper manner, it could be even an asset and an amenity to the project. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MILLER-The only problem with a pond is usually the liability, and we don't want something with a big chain link fence around it. What we will do in the stormwater calculations, we'll calculate the existing runoff that goes to the west end of the site. So we'll come up with a certain flow and volume of water, and that's what we're limited to releasing, and we'll also do the calculations of how much we can infiltrate through the drywell system and infiltration. Now, if the outlet, you know, a 50 year storm exceeds what's already there, then the detention basin is the last resort to just close that gap. So most of the time there'll be no impact from drainage, only for the major storm occurrences. MR. LAPPER-One other point, the Cedar Court homeowners that are right on that boundary were concerned that they wanted to make sure that the stormwater management plan didn't get the water to drain toward their homes, and by putting the pond, the drainage basin where it is, and with the underground perforated pipes, etc., it carries the water away from the Cedar Court boundary toward the pond, toward the back where it goes into the woods, and that's the plan to get it away from where the other homes are. MR. BREWER-I see some heads going like this behind you. So we'll hear from them. MR. STARK-Yield the table so we can take some public comment, would you please? MR. LAPPER-We'll yield. MR. STARK-If anybody from the public would like to comment on this project, come on up. Identify yourself. Remember, this is not a true public hearing. MR. MARTIN-There will be a public hearing, not tonight. WILLIAM WOODBURY MR. WOODBURY-I'm William Woodbury. I live at 49 Cedar Court. It's a beautiful proj ect, however, the part that scares me is the drainage going west, south. It puts the drainage right in my back yard, at this point, and it's darn wet right now, as a result of not a SO year storm, and I'm really concerned about it, and I think if you take a walk over to the development now, you'll see a lot of flooding out in back of some of our homes. MR. STARK-Show us where you live on those homes right there on Cedar Court. MR. WOODBURY-Cedar Court, I'm over about in here. They say the drainage is going southwest. This is south, this is west. MR. BREWER-Yes, but they show it up above your house. MR. STARK-He's going to answer all your questions after we take all the public comment. Anybody else? MICHAEL WEBSTER MR. WEBSTER-My name is Michael Webster. I live on Susan Place. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few things. Mr. Michaels has been pretty decent to work with and pretty accommodating to most of the residents in this area. I live in this residence right here, okay. Primarily being that 16 foot right-of-way, and those of you who have taken the road realize that your vehicle probably we:'.lt from about that wall to where he's sitting to their back porch, all right. None of the residents want that to be used as part of the common green space, okay. We've talked about this a little bit. Being the forever wild or the common green space for passive - 32 - '"--,, --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) recreation, all right, that means people either walking or riding. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want that 43 houses of how many residents doing that behind your house. The other concern is, I don't remember which one of you brought it up, but you didn't know who owned this little piece of property right here, okay, that cuts in. I believe if you look that up, you'll find that that's owned by the Town, okay, and the reason I bring that up is because it's still a conceptual plan, and you say that you need, for ingress and egress, two roadways, and should that change in the future and somebody brings it up as an issue, that they may be looking to make this a one lane road here, and a one lane road coming through Susan Place from Country Colony to Tee Hill, which would be disastrous. Okay. I don't know if you're familiar with Country Colony and Tee Hill, okay. Country Colony is just about wide enough for one car, going on to Tee Hill, the north end of Country Colony is an extremely dangerous spot. You see about 30 foot on a hill rise. The increased traffic there would be disastrous. Other than that, those two points right there, he's been terrific to work with, and I appreciate his comments, but those two things really scare me with this project. MR. MACEWAN-Can I ask a question? Ideally, what are YOU looking to see happen to that 16 foot strip? MR. WEBSTER-I've talked with the residents whom it primarily effects. We're looking to get that deeded right to us, and close it right down, so it's not used by this, and effectively, hopefully, we've got no problem with any of this, and we think it's a good plan. We always knew it would be developed. There was no problem with that, and this is actually a good way for it to be developed for us, because it does put a little space. Without the development, yes, there could be a house planted right there. So ideally we'd like to see that deeded right over. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else that would like to speak? BOB PALING MR. PALING-I'm Bob Paling, and I live in the Woodland subdivision on Cedar Court. This house, the fourth dwelling unit in, is mine. We've all been concerned all along about who's going to move next door, to our north, because this is a great wooded area, from the street all the way through. It's nice to have this in the back yard. When we saw this plan, generally speaking, we said, yes, it's good. We measured. We have take offs from the rear of two of the houses here, so we know exactly where the borders of all of this area, and we're very pleased with it, and we know that the builder is with us, that built our subdivision, does a good job. We suspect he'll do the same job here. We do have a sensitive area back in here that's got standing water in it. We had a final meeting with The Michaels Group yesterday, and they've come up with a plan that looks very good that will take care of water that's down here and the only thing that we asked, and I think I speak for most all of the people in Cedar Court, is, we've got to get our own problem solved, but don't add to it in any form by having any runoff water from the new subdivision run into ours, but it looks like they're taking care of that. So we are, generally speaking, very much in favor of this subdivision. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any comments to make? Okay. Tommy and Jim, would you like to come back up and address the first gentleman's comment. MR. MILLER-The first comment on the drainage pattern is, the area they're talking about, they're right. As a matter of fact, I've met with Dave Michaels and we've discussed what they're talking about is this low area right in here. What happens is the existing - 33 - , (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) runoff from the field now comes down here, and this is so flat that the water tends to sit there, but if you look, this line here is the other drainage pattern that comes down, and this is actually the stream that it starts to form a stream down in here that's to the west and behind Cedar Court. So we have two drainage patterns. We've got one that comes behind Cedar Court and we also have this one that comes down like this. This one here, as flat as it is, eventually goes to the back. So what our goal here is to try to minimize anything that comes directly to the south, and our only other option is to go out the back end. So that's why we're trying to take that water and what doesn't infiltrate, take off the back end, and when we come back for preliminary, we'll have the stormwater management plans and calculations and the grading plan to accomplish that. In the mean time, The Michaels Group is identifying some solutions here. Some of the options we talked about were some perforated pipe and gravel trenches and things to try to convey the water out of that low area to the rear of the property. So between the two things, we feel that should take care of that drainage problem there. As far as the 16 foot right-of- way, you heard Dave Michaels talk about that, and that sounds like that will be resolved. The other issue, we looked at that 50 foot connection, and obviously that was part of that subdivision as a potential access point back to this property, and when we had some discussions with the re-zoning with the County, they even talked about connecting over to Cedar Court, and our reaction to both of those is both of these are well established communi ties and neighborhoods who neither one would appreciate us running our traffic by their front door. So we purposely decided to go with the additional cost of the boulevard, and create our double access way that way, rather than impact the adjoining communities. So we looked through that, and the survey I saw showed an owner of that other than the Town, but it very well could be owned by the Town. MR. MARTIN-I think it is the Town. MR. MILLER-Okay. So it probably was dedicated over probably as an access way, and as far as we're concerned, the neighbors could go to the Town and look for an abandonment of that connection, because we're not interested in pursuing it. MR. STARK-Okay. The second question was from Mr. Webster about the 16 foot right-of-way, and you would probably be the one to answer that, wouldn't you, Jon, what's going to happen to that? Are you going to deed it to those homeowners over there? MR. LAPPER-What we could do, and under the Subdivision Regulations, is do boundary agreements, so that we wouldn't need that to be part of the subdivision approval. Right now, that's the only easy access to the property. So until this is approved, if we have to go on the property to do tests, etc., while we're planning it out, that would be the obvious access. That's the way to get there. MR. STARK-No construction equipment, though, other than maybe a back hoe or something? MR. LAPPER-Exactly, because no, we can't do anything under SEQRA until this is all done, and we can't do any construction. This is just testing. Once the project is approved, the first thing that Dave would do would be to cut in that road, and then all the construction traffic would be in there. So once this is approved and that road is established with the boulevard, what he has offered is that these could be conveyed through boundary line adjustments to the neighbors, and we've gone on record that Dave's willing to do that. MR. STARK-Fine. Mr. Paling had a question about water that's existing right now behind those houses on the north side of Cedar Court Lane. There's standing water out there now and do you want - 34 - " "-' '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) to address that? MR. MILLER-That's the area where The Michaels Group is proposing putting a perforated pipe and stone trench in, and trying to drain the water out of that low, flat area, because as it happens, it kind of pockets there, and it's low area in the site, so it's probably impacted by, when there's high groundwater it probably impacts. The idea is to put like a French Drain type of detail in that area and fill that and convey the water out more positively to the stream, to the rear of the property. MR. STARK-Actually, is it your contention that, when this project is built out, there'll be less water coming onto their, behind their back yard, going through, where the basin is? MR. MILLER-That's our intention. We don't have any calculations at this time, but when we get into the next phase with the grading and the drainage calculations, that's what we're trying to accomplish. MR. STARK-Jim, do you have any comments as of yet? MR. MARTIN-No, I'm all set. MR. STARK-Okay. What about the phasing? They didn't want to phase it, you know, Phase I, Phase II. They just wanted approval, and we can, at preliminary. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's too early to talk about a phasing line, and if they want to ask for a waiver, they're certainly able to do that, and it's most appropriate done at Preliminary, if they want to ask for a waiver from that. MR. STARK-Tim, do you have any final comments or no? Dave? Roger, I know you do. MR. RUEL-No. MR. STARK-I'm amazed. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I have one more comment I want to make that just came to mind. When The Michaels Group looked to Queensbury to do new developments and set up an office and Dave moved to Town, Cedar Court was an existing project that had been approved in the late 80's, and it was sort of languishing. I think that there were eight homes that were constructed before we got started, and it was approved for 64 lots, and that was not, it was all four plexes, and that was not Dave's concept. So when he came in, we came before the Board and modified that subdivision and brought it down to 48, but in terms of the drainage, I mean, this is not an example of a Michaels Group development where they would be in the final stages, and we would have standing water. This is just something that was inherited. They've done a lot to clean up, improve Cedar Court from what was the original developer's concept, and that's something that they're going, now, to make the neighbors happy and deal with it, but that shouldn't be looked at as an example of something that you would have in a Michaels Group development at the end of the build out, where you'd have standing water, but it is going to be addressed. MR. STARK-Fine. I think you know what most of us up here are looking at, and the Planning Staff is looking at. So do you plan on coming in next month? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STARK-For the Preliminary? MR. LAPPER-Yes. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. STARK-Okay. anything? MR. MARTIN-I think you just indicate a recommendation to proceed on to Preliminary, and if you do have any thoughts you'd like to convey to them, or concerns that they address in Preliminary, you should do that now. Any final comments or anything? Do we need MR. MACEWAN-I would also add to that any waivers that you want in the Subdivision Reg's, put it in the form of a letter so that it's in our packets and we can have them before the night of the meeting. MR. STARK-Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion to move on to the Preliminary Stage? MOTION TO RECOMMEND FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1997 THE MICHAELS GROUP FROM THE SKETCH PLAN TO PROCEED TO THE PRELIMINARY PLAN TO DEVELOP A 43 LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 22nd day of May, 1997, by the following vote: MR. STARK-Do you want to add about the water or anything like that? MR. BREWER-I think they have reference to that. MR. RUEL-It's all part of the requirements, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I mean, they've heard you. I don't know they need it quantified. MR. RUEL-I don't think it has to be added at this time, since it's already part of the requirements for a Preliminary plan. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-Just verify the SPDES Permit. MRS. LABOMBARD-If it's necessary. MR. BREWER-They're aware of it, and Tom Nace, I think, indicated he was going to check into it. MR. MARTIN-Well, what we're try and do is next time this comes up we'll try and get you a copy of the minutes of this meeting for the Board members so you have a recollection of what was discussed and don't have to work off of just memory. MR. STARK-Okay. AYES: Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Thank you. Howard Carr, is anybody here for Howard Carr? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-This is the Jon Lapper Hit Parade. DISCUSSION ITEM: SP 35-92 HOWARD CARR QUEENS BURY PLAZA. DISCUSSION OF MODIFICATIONS TO QUEENS BURY PLAZA - MODIFICATIONS INCLUDE REDUCING - 36 - "--' '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) SQUARE FOOTAGE, RELOCATING BUILDING, IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING DRIVE AISLES AND LANDSCAPING. JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, do you have some comment on this? MR. MARTIN-We don't have anything formal yet until we get the actual plan in hand, but they have met several times with us at a Staff level concerning this last building that is available for this site. We discussed primarily some landscaping improvements and some improvements that would result in an improved circulation through the center itself. We have been privy to some complaints about the painted yellow rocks, and so I think they have indicated a willingness to do some concrete curbing, and widen the drive aisles and enhance the landscaping and our general thing was, at least what 1 said to them is, this center's come a long way, but it's still just not quite there yet. It doesn't that, it has an urban feel to it, and I don't know what could be done. That's why we've got Jim Miller here for, to tell us how he's going to improve it and make it better, and our Staff comment was basically we still think it could be improved, but I give a lot of compliment to the existing owner. He's brought it a long way from what it was several years ago. MR. PALING-I think everybody's got comments about this, but why don't we turn it over to the applicant's representatives and let them answer our questions before we have the chance to ask them. MR. LAPPER-Okay. To begin with, Howard couldn't be here tonight. Like many of my clients, he's partying in Las Vegas. Jon Lapper, and Jim Miller. This week is the international shopping center convention in Las Vegas, where all the developers go. If you recall the history of this property, before the Olive Garden was added, which was the first big site plan modification, there was the old Kentucky Fried Chicken and the liquor store which had pigeons living in them, and so the first thing was to add the Olive Garden, and then the second site plan modification was to add the Red Lobster, and that added a lot more landscaping and cleaned up where the old Sears used to be. Let me just show you on the old map. Jim will then explain all the new changes to clean it up even more. What we have, as an existing approval right now, is this is all existing, and this is the Red Lobster which is existing. This building is an approved site plan for another 32,000 square foot building. So we could just go and build that right now, and instead of doing that, in order to take advantage of shared parking, the Plaza also includes the lot which is across Bank Street from Evergreen Bank, WhLCh was always set, when we got the approval, thinking that tenants would always want to be as close to the road as they could, which is typical commercial tenant, that we would use this for employee parking or Christmas overflow parking, etc., and at this point what we've come up with as a concept is to slide the building back, reduce it to 30,000 square feet, because that's all that Jim could comfortably fit on the site, so that the parking is in front, so that the parking could be utilized for the new building for Red Lobster and for the existing businesses here. There are two other parts of this proposal. You can't see, but Bank Street comes to a "T" because the Plaza starts right here, and we're about to, we've already met with Paul Naylor, and he has said that he would agree with it. We're about to request the Town Board to abandon this little, what is it about SO by SO? This little edge of the "T", and that would then be part of where the building is, and we're going to, and that'll be, next week we'll submit that to the Town Board. The other thing that we're attempting to do is to acquire another 30,000 from Niagara Mohawk, which is not necessary for their power corridor because there are no power lines, other than a distribution over to the Red Lobster, and that would change the permeability and allow us to do some more - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) landscaping back there, and clean we expect that NiMo will agree to, we don' t have an answer yet. landscaping. that up. That's something that but we've had some contact, but Why don' t you talk about the MR. MILL~R-Jon had mentioned, this was a previously approved plan. So what we tried to do is, you know, if you look, I think it was like 32,000 square feet was allowed under that plan. This building would actually be a reduction to 30,000, and the approved parking ~ot plan was for 704 cars, with this building. So what we did is we used that as a model. So what this shows is basically the same parking and slightly less building area. When we met with the Planning Staff, we tried to identify some of the problems and concerns with this shopping center, and as part of our site plan, we would come in with some recommendations. One of the other things we discussed with Jim is he wanted to see more trees, and he felt that, in addition to what we may have with our site plan for the new building, that he'd like to see additional tree planting in the parking lots, in the amount of about one tree for 20 cars, which was an additional tree planting of a minimum of 35 trees. What we did is we looked at this area, and some of the problems that we saw, a lot of little Hemlocks in the very narrow islands are just having a tough time and they're getting beat up and don't look very good, and along the building, what we recommended was removing those and just go to a painted island. The parking's at a shortage close to the building, and just have a painted island close to the building and eliminate those old piles of mulch that are there. The Hemlocks will be transplanted, and we looked at some other areas around the back side of the property where we could use some additional evergreen screening, and rather than waste those Hemlocks, put them back there, allow them to grow, get them out of the way, and try to introduce some evergreens along the back. In addition, the timber curbs that are in these islands here would be removed. Concrete curbs would be added, and a couple of parking spaces in here, there were some were actually about two foot wide and they had a row of rocks. Some we'd lose a couple of parking spaces there so we could get a wider island to get some planting. So as you're viewing the, looking into the parking lot, we have more plant area in those islands to soften that view to the parking lot. Right now, there's some narrow islands through here that each one has a tree in it, and I believe they're Honey Locusts. Some of them are a little hard for me to tell until the leaves come out, and what we're suggesting is, since we're going to do some work in this area and construct new islands, what we'd do is we'd get a tree spade and do these islands first, then move some of these trees over here, and transplant those into these islands. In addition, and where Bank Street comes in, you know, this is a fairly major connection, and also with the new building in the back, this will become an important connection where the traffic comes in to bring people back into this rear lot. What we're trvinq to do is maintain some segmentation of the parking lot so, you know, the bulk of this parking here is for the Red Lobster, which they access directly in off this right hand turn, access to the rear building would be through this, essentially Bank Street Extension. We feel this is an important connection. So what we've recommended here is we're going to take out a parking space on each side and create a curbed island with a wide driveway. This would be a 28 foot wide driveway through here and a curbed island. I think it's around 22, to at least improve that connection there, and then these islands would be widened, and, you know, shade trees would be planted in there. In addition, to create more of an entry, the lighter color trees you see are what's there. There's like five trees down in these islands now. New planting would be placed in here, and what we're looking at doing is creating a row of Bradford Pears, which are low, dense, to kind of break up, you know, one of the concerns we have is when you look from above down into this parking lot, you don't have much that breaks up that view of all those cars. So you feel something like the Bradford Pear is - 38 - ',,--, "-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) going to be a dense enough tree that that's going to really provide some separation and also, you know, improve the entry coming into the property. MR. MARTIN-What are the trees going to be on the main island going across there, Jim? MR. MILLER-Well, I was thinking of something like a Summit Ash. I heard there were some concerns that there were some wetness in some of those tree pit areas, and that could take some wet conditions, some seasonal wet conditions, plus also it's a nice warm clean tree and it grows quickly. What we looked at for the, right now this is all parking and it doesn't get used very much. There's an island here that extends down part way. What we're recommending is this island would be extended as part of our site plan here, to try to minimize, you know, one of the things that's dangerous in these parking lots is people cut across these parking lanes rather than stay to the drive lanes. So what we want to do is eliminate this long run of parking here and provide some separation, and by doing that it maintains a loop, you know, picking up the driveway along the fronts of the buildings, and then the primary parking for our building here would be right in this area. The land that Jon talked about that would be picked up would be this corner. Actually these two property lines would be squared up, and actually it's a piece the size here, and within that area, we spoke to Kip Grant, and there'd be a fire lane down that side, and the only thing, to the rear of the property, would be a service area. Right now there's a drainage ditch comes through here. That would also pipe, you know, catch basins and pipe in there and eliminate that, and clean up that whole ditch along the side, and we'd suggest landscaping that rear service area, especially with the Bank property over here, and then this side of the building would be no store fronts or anything. That would just be a side of the building, it would be lawned and treed, and we'd have a covered walkway facing out onto the shopping center. One of the other concerns was to see what we could do to the back of the building, and one of the things I felt was a big concern is that as you come through the intersection, and you look down, you're above it, and you're starting to get a long view down and you see a lot of the maintenance area in the back here. This entrance has been barricaded off now, but I'm showing coming in here with something, again, like the Bradford Pear with a dense canopy, very thick tree, that we'd plant there along our property line to try to soften that view down into this service area. MR. RUEL-Make them tall. Try to hide the mechanicals on the top of that building, too. MR. MILLER-Yes, well, I don't think you're going to get that tall, and in addition what we've tried to do, right now there's a nice row of maples down through here with a few LYndons in there, and there's a deciduous hedge in there. So when it leafs out, you know, actually from this area on Quaker, this gives you a pretty nice screen. So one of the things we heard was that when the leaves fall down you can still see everything. So we thought, you know, that would be a good area, rather than lose, because we've got these Hemlocks all through here and all along the front. We'd take all of those and transplant them into groups in this area, in some groups along the back in here where it's fairly open, to try to get some evergreen in there, give them some time, they'll grow up and supplement that screen along the back. MR. MACEWAN-When would you anticipate all this to begin? MR. MILLER-You always ask us that, but we can't do anything until we get the approval. MR. MACEWAN-With approval? - 39 - , -.. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MILLER-Well, we'd have to get a site plan modification and I would assume for the new site plan. MR. MACEWAN-Would everything coincide with the construction of this new store or is it kind of like phasing the thing, you're going to do the store first and the rest? MR. LAPPER-No. No phasing, I mean, this will be all part of one site plan approval, so that we couldn't get a co until all this is done. I mean, there's no more phasing. This is the last piece of cleaning up the Center. MR. BREWER-The last phase. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And might I say, you've done a fine job there. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. It's better anyway. MR. STARK-Not at that intersection. That's the worst intersection there is. MR. BREWER-No, I mean overall, George, they did a great job. MR. STARK-Yes, overall, fine, but the main one. Are you going to widen the access road going in to where it comes to Bank Street Extension? MR.. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STARK-You're widening the main entrance? MR. LAPPER-The main entrance that connects to Bank Street right here. MR. STARK-No, the one coming out, coming in from Glen Street. Are you going to widen that? MR. LAPPER-No. That was done as part of the Red Lobster. That's pretty, the only thing that's narrow is the Red Lobster entrance, and that's because it's only a one way. MR. MACEWAN-I drive a minivan. When you go in there and take that right hand turn like you want to try to duck into Staples, for a parking spot, if there's a car sitting right there wanting to come out, you cannot make that right hand turn to get in. MR. LAPPER-That one's going to be widened, at that intersection. MR. RUEL-That's going to be widened. MR. MILLER-Well, I also, I was talking to Tom Nace about this, and he thinks that part of the problem is the radius on the curb there is real tight, and so what we're going to do is we're going to look at that. If we can widen that out and make that turn a little easier, we'll do that. MR. PALING-Now you're working on the drive aisle, and that's looking good. I hope they do soften that curb, right hand turn, but how about the spaces themselves? Are you going to do anything with that? MR. LAPPER-What are they? MR. MARTIN-They're 9 by 20, according to Code. MR. RUEL-You think they're too tight? - 40 - -'I' '-' '--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. PALING-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Part of that is that we had a pre-existing site from whatever, the Sixties. MR. MARTIN-And the way we approached this when we discussed this with them is you have to recognize, to a certain extent this site has got a lot of limitations to it, and it's not ideal, but given the limitations, you know, we made comments to the effect we're trying to get as much out as we can given those limitations. MR. PALING-What does the long range plan call for, regarding measurements? MR. MARTIN-The long range plan, I think you're going to see an up- sizing of the spacing. It used to be 10 by 20. It went down to 9 by 20. I think you're going to see it go back up to 10 by 20. MR. BREWER-That was just a couple of years ago it went back to nine, wasn't it? MR. MARTIN-The early 90's, yes. It was done for the Mall, primarily, when they did the enclosed shopping center zone. MR. PALING-Wal-Mart and K-Mart didn't pay any attention to those. They just went beyond it, and they've got nice, easy to use parking lots, and this the drive aisles, I agree, are the worst. MR. MARTIN-Actually, I'd like to see a 10 by 18 stall, myself. I don't think you need that 20 feet. MR. MILLER-Well, I think, I don't think the problem is so much in the parking space. I think 9 is adequate. I think where the biq problem is here is the dri ve lanes, because in you Code, you require a 20 foot parking stall, but you also allow a 20 foot driveway, and I think there's the problem. We do a lot of Rite Aid stores, and Rite Aid themselves want 26 feet, and what happens, it depends on how you're designing a parking lot. If you're designing, like, an office where people come in, park in the morning, and then stay there all day. You could have a tighter space. You're doing something like a shopping center or a Rite Aid or a fast food restaurant, you're having a very big turnover, those are the areas you need the wider drive lanes. The problem is you go from a nine to a ten foot stall, and end up paving a lot of space and wasting a lot of space that, you try to meet the parking requirements, but I think the problem here is drive lanes, and to really resolve some of those problems, they would have to re-do the whole lot and lose an awful lot of spaces. MR. RUEL-Does that new building look somewhat similar to Parts America? MR. LAPPER-Howard will be here next time to talk about the facade. We haven't had discussions that far along. MR. RUEL-Okay, but it's one story? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Do you have a tenant? MR. LAPPER-No. He's negotiating with a couple. MR. MARTIN-That's one additional comment. I would press the applicant on the facade treatment of the entire center. MR. BREWER-Yes, sir. Didn't we? We've done that before, and we've lost. - 41 - , -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MARTIN-There is language in the site plan review, not to the extent of architectural review, certainly, but it does speak to uniform facade treatment. MR. LAPPER-We actually, we came here, we had a facade plan that was the drivet facade that's on the Olive Garden and then up to REX, and there was a plan to continue that along. There was no time frame, because at that point this center was under water financially. That was before, that was when Olive Garden was approved and that was before Red Lobster. Things are getting better and it's probably a good time to talk to Howard about it, but we can't commit on his behalf without him being here. MR. MARTIN-He can read this minutes though, Jon. MR. RUEL-You know what ruins it is a lot of the signs. They've got glaring signs up there. MR. MARTIN-Well, you can have an area for signage, but then the balance of the facade should have some uniformity. MR. BREWER- In Freeport, Maine there's a McDonalds, and if you didn' t see that little two by two thing that had the "M" on it, you would think it was a home, and I don't understand why these malls and plazas can't do the same. They still can have their identity, but it's contained in a small area. I mean, it looks, to me, I mean, you see one sign like this and then one sign like that. It's crazy. MR. LAPPER-Everybody's got their own trademark. MR. BREWER-It's like a business card, though. You could put it on that kind of a space. MR. MARTIN-The Staples thing is they want the whole front of their store bright red with white lettering, the whole front. MR. RUEL-Well, they claim it's a logo. MR. STARK-Big dog is blue, and everything else is red or green. MR. RUEL-Jim, one statement for planning purposes. It has nothing to do with this because it's already built, but it seems to me that that loop road adj acent to the stores, right in front of the stores, is kind of a dangerous situation. People get out of their cars and then, when you first come out of the store, you're right on the road, and you had to be very careful. I've seen a lot of cases there where people almost got hit, especially children. MR. PALING-There's a sidewalk. MR. RUEL-There's a sidewalk, but then the road's right there. All I'm saying is, if, in the future, that loop road could still be built, but not directly in front of the building, but rather say a whole row of cars. MR. MILLER-That's a required fire lane. Any building of this size, it's like even this road here, you know, we had to ask permission to see if it would be okay to have a road 30 feet away, and when you get to a certain size building, fire code requires that you have to have fire access all around the building. So look at all the supermarkets, you know, they have to put sawhorses out there to keep people from parking there because they have a 36 foot wide fire lane, and that's what that is. That's a fire code requirement. Yes, I agree with you. It's not the best solution. MR. RUEL-It is dangerous. - 42 - J .",--" ,-"f (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MARTIN-But what we were looking for tonight, though, are you generally liking what you're hearing, and anything else you want before this comes in for a formal modification? MR. MACEWAN-I would entertain the idea about the facade. Yellow rocks go, timbers go. I want to see concrete curbing, and widening of the drive aisles. MR. MARTIN-I like the landscaping job he did. I think he's done, I think he's really maxed it out. MR. BREWER-Just one other question, Jim. I notice, I go by there every morning, and you've got piles of dirt out there. I've noticed, in the past, when it gets real wet, the water lays there. Is that what your intention is, to fill all that and make it a? MR. MARTIN-Do you know why the water lays there? MR. BREWER-Yes. I know exactly why. MR. LAPPER-We'll talk about that in Howard's presence, as well. We can commit, so far, to getting rid of all the landscape timbers, putting in concrete curbs, and doing the landscaping. MR. PALING-And the rocks? MR. LAPPER-Replacing them with concrete curbs, and re-doing all of the trees. As a resident, I don't want to look at the painted rocks anYmore than yOU do. I don't know why they're there, but that's your place to talk to Howard about it. MR. PALING-I know one guy in a van who doesn't, either, who was hung right up on one. I saw that one. MR. MARTIN-Well, I had a couple of people call me, mad. MR. BREWER-At what? MR. MARTIN-Those yellow rocks. MR. RUEL-I don't know if it's your responsibility or the road department, but the entrance, it's like going up and down a curb. MR. LAPPER-That's the DOT. MR. RUEL-Can't that be fixed? It's been that way ever since. MR. MARTIN-That's DOT. They did put a little like ramp there for it. MR. RUEL-That should be fixed. MR. BREWER-Jon, could you mention that in the back, though, about why the water lays there, to Mr. Carr. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I think we could probably work that into the site plan. MR. MARTIN-He's going to have all the equipment there to address that. MR. PALING-Okay. Anybody else, comments? MR. MACEWAN-The only other comment I want to make is that, sitting on the Planning Board for five years, it's the first time tonight I've ever heard the Planning Board applaud an applicant. MRS. LABOMBARD-Me, too. - 43 - e' " / '--- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/22/97) MR. MACEWAN-I've never heard of it. MR. BREWER-Yes, we have. Don't say that. We sure have applauded applicants. MR. STARK-A lot of jobs we've commented on. MR. MILLER-You don't want us to get too comfortable. MR. RUEL-If at all possible, I would like to see a plan before and after. All right. Show the existing layout, next time you come in. Show the existing layout, and then somehow superimpose the new on it, or make a separate. So that way we can see the differences. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 44 -