Loading...
01-20-2015Town of Queensbury Planning Board January 20, 2015 Meeting Minutes Item Applicant Page Site Plan 4-2012 Hayes & Hayes 1 Extension Request Site Plan 9-2015 Lake George Associates 1 Subdivision 3-2012 Doug Coon 6 Final Stage Site Plan 1-2015 Kyle Stevens for AFSCO Fence 9 Site Plan 2-2015 William Ehlert, Jr. 13 Subdivision 1-2015 Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures 25 Site Plan 3-2015 Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures 25 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES AND WILL STATE APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING January 20, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Chris Hunsinger, Chairman Stephen Traver, Vice-Chairman Paul Schonewolf, Secretary Brad Magowan David Deeb George Ferone Jamie White MEMBERS ABSENT Thomas Ford LAND USE PLANNER-Laura Moore OFFICE SPECIALIST-Pam Whiting Mr. Hunsinger: Call to order the meeting of Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, January 20, 2015. I’d like to welcome our newest member George Ferone, our longest tendered alternate in the history of Mr. Ferone: Two years next month. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, okay. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes from November. Would anyone like to move them? RESOLUTION APPROVE – NOVEMBER MINUTES MOTION TO APPROVE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18 & NOVEMBER 20, 2014 Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None ABSTAIN: Mrs. White Mr. Hunsinger: We have an administrative item this evening, Site Plan 4-2013 Hayes & Hayes, they are looking for an extension. Is there any additional information Laura? Mrs. Moore: They are working on getting this project started and there is no additional information other than it is in the works. Mr. Hunsinger: Is there any discussion by board members? Mr. Traver: This is their second extension? Mr. Hunsinger: I believe so, Mr. Traver: Yes, well they are not asking for a year, they are asking til June. I don’t have a problem with it. Mr. Hunsinger: Anyone else. Anyone like to move it? RESOLUTION APPROVE – EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN 4-2013 HAYES & HAYES A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings and construct 13 new duplex apartments totaling 15,483 sq. ft. along with associates site work on a 3.47 acre property. Apartment Houses in an Office zone require Planning Board review and approval. The application was approved on 1-22-2013 and received an extension to 1-27-2015; The applicant’s agent has submitted a letter requesting an additional extension of approval to 6-30-2015; MOTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR SITE PLAN 4-2013 HAYES & HAYES (LUZERNE ROAD) TO JUNE 30, 2015, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Extension to June 30, 2015. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Under Planning Board recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals we have Lake George Associates Site Plan 9-2015. Laura? Mrs. Moore: This applicant proposes to renovate the exterior of a 14,400 sq. ft. building with new architectural features, new color scheme, stone work and entryway. To the rear of the building will be new landscaping, delivery entrances and upgrades to the drive aisles along the property line. The area variance is for relief requested for new construction within 75 feet of the travel corridor overlay zone and the front setback requirements of the CI zone. The Planning Board is to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board in regards to the applicant’s request for such relief. Mr. Hunsinger: Good everyone. Mr. Lapper: Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper. Very pleased to be here to talk to you about this project. What happened here is that, this is Lake George Associates is the entity that owns it. They are affiliated with Gordon Development out of Albany who I do lots of projects for all over the capital district. They called me and said they’ve owned this thing for a while, it was built in the 80’s, it’s really tired looking, the other plazas are getting nicer in the corridor, they need to spend some money to upgrade this. So I hooked them up with the same Baltimore architects that we hired for Corey’s project, for the new plaza, where the Montcalm was and they, the retrofitting of the one across the street where Polo is. These are the guys that designed what you have here. I got Tom Nace on board to improve the site plan so in terms of the architectural, this is just about spending some necessary money to add stone to the front, making these three towers more prominent, a lot of stone, new colors just really modernize this and make a statement because It really is very tired. In terms of the variance itself the building is not getting any closer to the road, the only reason is not’s 75 is because the last time DOT came and did improvements along route 9 there was a small taking so it’s roughly 7.5 feet shy of 75 feet now and this is all being done no closer to the road than the building is, but just to go up it requires an area variance because there is nothing upstairs now and it’s just really to make it look more architecturally prominent. Then in terms of the site plan there is not much stormwater control on the site and its exempt because it’s so small but nevertheless what Tom Nace provided is permeable pavement in the whole rear area which is now compacted sand and gravel which is kind of a no man’s land where the plaza in the back is very close to the property line and somewhat of a free for all so in order to everyone uses this back yard but it’s sand and gravel so now it’s going to be paved and it’s going to be done with permeable paving so it’ll help the stormwater. He’s added some green area back behind dedicated delivery entrances areas in the back. A stone trench to get roof water so he’s addressing stormwater even though he technically doesn’t have to and adding some new landscaping along around the building to pretty it up. But just having the whole site paved it’s going to go a long way to clean it up from what is there now and well as the architecture. I’m hoping to get the variance this week at the Zoning Board and be back to talk to you about the site plan. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, any questions comments from the board? I always wondered whose property it was because when you drive back there part of it is paved and most of it’s not. Mr. Lapper: It’s a mess. Mr. Schonewolf: Was it a split piece of property at one time? Mr. Lapper: I don’t know what the history was, if they were ever owned together, it’s kind of weird because if you look at, which doesn’t affect this project but if you look on the survey on the first page of the site plan the building in the back is actually utilizing its drive aisle for parking spaces which means that is has to be trespassing onto this site so rather than fight about that these guys just decided let’s just pave it and it will work for everybody for deliveries, for the site, for people driving in the back and let it go because it’s been going on that way for some period of time. Mr. Ferone: And when you talked about DOT shaving off some area in the front is that when they put the turning lane in? Mr. Lapper: I’m not sure, there was a taking and I’m not sure if it was when they did the sidewalks went in with the street trees and the lights. I mean I think based upon on the turning radius you’re right George it probably wasn’t that way to begin with but the whole property line is now back behind all those improvements, the sidewalk that’s what happened. Mr. Magowan: Well that’s when they came down and put that center lane down – I call it no man’s lane – and they added the sidewalk and everything else and it was about 6-7 feet right there easy, if not 8. Mr. Lapper: Yes. Mr. Ferone: The other question I had they talk about delivery zones and that, I’m assuming that’s in the back where these entry doors are but are there very large trucks that go back there? There doesn’t seem to be like a lot of room back there between their property and where the Fish 307 is. Mr. Lapper: It’s actually a fair amount of room there is, they don’t get a lot of deliveries, certainly room for a tractor trailer if necessary to park there and unload and that’s what’s happening now, on gravel and sand. Mr. Hunsinger: The only other comment I have is really a site plan issue. So much of the proposal is the color scheme but you didn’t specify the name of the colors. Mr. Lapper: Okay I can have that when we come back. Mr. Hunsinger: I mean I like the colors that were presented but I didn’t’ see anywhere they were named. Mr. Lapper: Sure. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from board members? Does anyone have a concern with the variance request specifically? Mr. Schonewolf: Does staff have anything they want to add to it? Mrs. Moore: I don’t have anything to add, thank you. RESOLUTION APPROVE - PB RECOMMENDATION TO ZBA AREA VARIANCE 5-2015 LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes to renovate the exterior of a 14,400 sq. ft. building with new architectural features –new color scheme, stone work, new entryway. Also at rear of the building –new landscaping, delivery entrances, and upgrade to drive aisle area along property line. Area Variance: Relief requested for new construction within 75 feet of the Travel corridor Overlay zone and front setback requirements of the CI zone. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Building Renovation and Improvements and Modification to an existing approved site plan shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board of Appeals & Planning Board approval; The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community, and found that: MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2015 LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan, and The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal - Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mrs. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: We have one item under old business this evening and that is Subdivision 3-2012, Freshwater Wetlands 2-2014 Final Stage for Doug Coon. Laura. Mrs. Moore: The applicant has completed the final stage subdivision application for the subdivision of 15.59 acres and the freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 feet of a designated wetland. Mr. Hunsinger: Good evening. Mr. Lapper: Good evening. For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Hutchins. We were here last month for preliminary and you let us get the final application in. We got a typical medium sized list from Chazen mostly stormwater comments. Tom made the submission, got it down to three items two of which were SHPO and endangered species which has now been satisfied so we’re down to one last stormwater issue. Tom submitted a redesign and we’re waiting for a sign-off we’re hoping we’re ready to go with a condition on Chazen sign-off. Mr. Hunsinger: Questions, comments from the board? RESOLUTION APPROVE – SUBDIVISION 3-2012 (FINAL STAGE) & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2014 DOUG COON A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 15.59 acre parcel with lots ranging in size from 1.16 to 10.16 acres to create 4 new building lots and retain lot with existing residence and horse farm. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Freshwater Wetlands: Construction within 100 feet of a designated wetland requires Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 11-20-2014 & 12-16-2014; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 3-2012 & FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2014 DOUG COON, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Brad Magowan In accordance with the resolution submitted by staff: Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter A-183, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; A SEQR Negative Declaration was approved on 12-16-14; The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman. The applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit or for coverage under an individual SPDES prior to the start of any site work. The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; and The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: The approved final that have been stamped by the Town Zoning Administrator. These plans must include the project SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan) when such a plan was prepared and approved; The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; As-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans to be provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Lapper: For the record I’m on last at the Zoning Board on Thursday so this is a rare quick, quick thing. Mr. Hunsinger: We have four items under new business this evening. All of them have public hearings scheduled. The first one is Kyle Stevens for AFSCO Fence Site Plan 1-2015. Laura. Mrs. Moore: The applicant proposes to construct of 5,000 sq. ft. cold storage building for fencing materials . . . the applicant has indicated the indoor storage in necessary for fencing materials to avoid damage by the weather. The cold storage building will be located in the material storage yard that is currently graveled surface. The applicant received approval in 2000 for a storage shed that was 960 sq. ft. that is no longer there. This a new application, the applicant completed a new site plan review application for construction of the cold storage building. The applicant has requested waivers from traffic flow, disposal of construction waste, snow removal locations. Staff would suggest additional plantings on the west side of the property to be considered such as a Type C buffer which is 50 feet with 5 trees per 100 feet at 10 feet in height. This is about 15 trees. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, thank you. Good evening. Mr. Stevens: Hi. I’m Kyle Stevens I manage the AFSCO Fence branch on 34 Big Boom Road and as was just said we’re looking to put up a 50’ x 100’ cold storage building, wood and steel, to house our wood product. Basically what’s happening is the sun weathers our cedar wood which does look nice over time but it’s hard to sell that as brand new to customers and in the wintertime in the summer with rain and snow and everything, it’s long overdue that they cover up the wood product. As of right now we’re stapling plastic to it all the time, and buying new sheets of poly cover all the time, they’re blowing all over our yard and it’s a pain and it’s a pain now in the season when there are a lot of repairs when it comes to plows and other things during the wintertime. We have to access the wood material which is buried in ice and snow and it would just be really great if we could get this building and be able to cover up that material. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, anything else? Mr. Stevens: No that’s pretty much it. Mr. Magowan: Can I add something for you? Mr. Stevens: Yes sir. Mr. Magowan: So, the road salt that comes off the highway doesn’t do anything for your fence? Mr. Stevens: It does not, you said it, that’s right Mr. Magowan: I drove by the other day and said what an inventory sitting there all winter long. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the board? What color would the new building be? Mr. Stevens: It’s steel and I believe the trim is a green so it’s powder coated, the exact color of it, I believe it’s to match our building which is an off-white and . . . Mr. Traver: There was a suggestion in the staff comments that you put a line of vegetation of some sort between your property and the Northway. Do you have a problem doing that? Mr. Stevens: No, that wouldn’t be a problem. Mr. Traver: The only other issue is you had gotten earlier approval for a small shed that has since been removed so when you submit your final plan to the town if you could update that to reflect current conditions. Mr. Stevens: Yes sir. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to address the board? I’ll open the public hearing and any written comments? Mrs. Moore: There is no written comment Mr. Hunsinger: Let the record show no comments were received. We’ll close the public hearing. Any additional comments or concerns from the board? Just to reaffirm there is no lighting proposed? Mr. Stevens: No lighting proposed. Mr. Hunsinger: I know it said that in the staff notes. Well if there is no other comments. Mr. Schonewolf: Does staff have anything to add? Mrs. Moore: Only during the site plan aspect is to include the plantings and then include the current conditions. Mr. Schonewolf: When we get to site plan. Mr. Hunsinger: Were there any concerns identified by the board in the SEQR review? Mr. Traver: No it doesn’t seem like any of the changes are going to have an effect. RESOLUTION APPROVE – SEQR FOR SITE PLAN 1-2015 KYLE STEVENS / AFSCO FENCE The applicant proposes Applicant proposes 5,000 +/- sq. ft. enclosed cold storage building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-070 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an approved site plan and no site plan within the past seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 1-2015 KYLE STEVENS FOR AFSCO FENCE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan Per the draft provided by staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Any other comments concerns from the board? RESOLUTION APPROVE – SITE PLAN 1-2015 KYLE STEVENS FOR AFSCO FENCE An application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 5,000 +/- sq. ft. enclosed cold storage building. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9-070 & 179-9-020 of the Zoning Ordinance modification to an approved site plan and no site plan within the past seven years shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1-20-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 1-2015 KYLE STEVENS FOR AFSCO FENCE, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft provided by staff with the following conditions: Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; The applicant provide plantings on the west side of the property such as a type c buffer 50 feet with five trees per 100 feet at ten feet in height –this is 15 trees. The applicant submit a final plan that describes the current conditions on the site. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel; Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: You’re all set, good luck. It’s kind of like the first football game of the year, a little rough. Next item on the agenda is Site Plan 2-2015 for William Ehlert, Jr. Laura. Mrs. Moore: The applicant proposes to rehab an existing 1,431 sq. ft. single story structure. This is to operate a convenience market store. The project also includes a new 1,778 sq. ft. deck. They are proposing to upgrade the parking area that is 5,494 sq. ft. The site is proposed to accommodate 15 vehicles where only 12 are required. Staff would suggest, actually the applicant had requested waivers from wastewater, water supply, stormwater management plan, landscape plan, traffic flow, soil logs, construction disposal and snow removal and staff would suggest updating plans providing details on the landscaping, snow removal and also how the current stormwater works. Traffic information should also include such as hours of operation or the anticipated traffic flow on the site. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Good evening Mr. O’Connor: I’m Michael O’Connor from law firm of Little & O’connor representing the applicant. The applicant is William Ehlert who is here with us at the table and Kelly Ehlert who is at the far end of the table. William is going to own the site and Kelly is going is going to actually operate the store. Also Tom Hutchins who is the project engineer. This is kind of a simple project but it’s typical of a project where you’re buying a piece of property and trying to make sure that you can use it for your intended use. We’re under a short time table with our seller which is our problem and we were when we got this thing put together first we had to through a process to determine whether or not this was a permitted use. It took a little bit of time to have some good discussions with Craig and he was in agreement with what we proposed and then we went back and forth as to whether we would actually be able to hook up to the town sewer as an out of district sewer user and I think we found that we aren’t sure yet of that. There seems to be some resistance from the town board to grant additional contracts for out of district additional users and I understand that their reluctance to do that is that is commercial property that strip of property is commercial and they want to reserve it for commercial uses. I know that the property immediate to the west of us has run into with resistance but that’s residential, an apartment complex where this is an existing dance studio if you’re familiar with the property and we simply want to use for a country store, kind of like Bean’s up on Ridge Road. There will be an emphasis on preparation on food for takeout purposes, catering purposes with a couple of tables that are within the building. The actual change to the site are minimal. We’re going to put a covered porch on the front part of it. I think it’s 504 sq. ft. and we’re going to put a deck along the side of it. We’re going to define the parking, for entrance area we’re going to make it a little bit narrower than what it is. We’re going to have parking along the east boundary of the other property. The one comment I have as to the staff comment is they say that we are required to have twelve parking spots, we’ve actually done the layout and we’ve answered all the questions that the staff had as to parking, as to lighting, as to where we’re going to store the snow, if there is snow removal, where our septic system will be if we have to put a private system as opposed to hooking up to the town. We’ve laid all that out and I have it here. I know that the board doesn’t like somebody to hand something to you the night of the meeting but we’ve already done it, the site accommodates it. We really don’t think there are any environmental problems with the site. Lighting as I said is very minimal, I think we’ve got three guard lights that we’re going to have, the downcast, they will 100 watt bulbs I believe. Two aerial lights and five lights on the building. And the lights on the building will be the downcast packages. And that basically is it. If I can show you what we’ve done. Mr. Hunsinger: I was going to say, if you could just walk us through what is different on that plan versus what we have. Mr. Hutchins: Essentially what we did is clean up and define the plan. You can see on the photo the existing gravel area is right here on this entire east side of the building. There is the building and you’re talking about a covered deck out front and an open deck here. All the parking in this are with a turnaround and we’re reclaiming this area that is currently graveled and we’re expanding the gravel area out here which is basically is a net wash in gravel area. We’re showing a total of nine parking spaces because that’s the number we came up with when we looked at it. I noticed in the staff notes there is a different number. There is room for more but that’s what we had come up with and there is room for more. Wastewater system this is overall the whole site, it’s like 550 feet deep so there is plenty of room in the back yard for a wastewater system; soils are conducive; so we’ve shown an outline of the area here. Public water we’ve got area to push snow, we can also push snow this way although we’ve shown it back here. It’s essentially the same as the smaller version that you have but we tried to clean it up and define some areas. There is development data and the setbacks, we’re compliant with all the setbacks. This covered porch is at the 75 foot setback, we’ve shown a couple of area lights in the parking as well the five lights on the building. Mr. Hunsinger: Can you walk up through the landscaping? Mr. Hutchins: The landscaping, we’ve kept it primarily up here, we’ve got three 8-10 foot pinooks and a row of arborvitae’s. We have a sign shown here which would likely have a variety of planting area around that although we don’t actually show that, but that would be the norm. Mrs. Moore: Is there any new information about stormwater and how it’s handled on the site. Mr. O’Connor: We’ve shown the pitch, the site pitches to the east and we’ve shown a swale on the easterly border, along the border in the front. Mr. Hutchins: Just a swale and an infiltrating area in the sand. Mr. O’Connor: Any questions? Mr. Deeb: is the sign going to be lit? Mr. O’Connor: Bill? Mr. Ehlert: I would say yes you know we don’t have that sign designed in any form but we know that we need one. But I would have to say it would be lit. Mrs. Moore: Is it internal or down-lit? Mr. Ehlert: It’s going to be down-lit, whatever the requirements would be. Mr. O’Connor: It will be a compliant sign. Mrs. Moore: Okay Mr. Deeb: How about hours of operation? Mr. Ehlert: Typically it will just be a normal day of operation, 7 to 7 or 6 type of thing. This isn’t really a place for dining or evening dining, that’s not what it’s about. Mr. Deeb: Well you’re mostly looking for takeout? Mr. Ehlert: Well we want to be able to cater out of the facility so we’re looking for the kitchen capacity and then takeout out of the facility some a little bit of eat in type of thing. Mr. O’Connor: They’ll be baked goods, salads, we talked about in the office. It would be like what you see up at Bean’s. Mrs. Moore: So the store has some convenience items. Mr. O’Connor: Yes, if you look at the colored photographs we have, we show 4 tables and we show display cases behind it, that the square oblong type things. Mr. Ferone: With the deck you’re putting on is there going be seating outside in good weather or is that just there for people to be able to get in to the building. Mr. Ehlert: Well no we’d like to see some seating limited seating. We are mainly using it for display you know seasonal fruits and vegetables on display, outdoor products that could withstand the outdoors, yes. And possible a couple of tables if approved. Mr. O’Connor: Part of that deck is a ramp to make the site handicapped compliant. Mr. Deeb: What bout color scheme? Mr. Ehlert: Well at this point we’re looking for a country style, country colors. Right now it’s a beige, we plan on keeping it in the beige taupe type colors with a trim. Mr. Deeb: This color here, it’s white? Mr. Ehlert: A white or off-beige. Mr. Magowan: You’re going to be sticking to earth tone colors? Mr. Ehlert: Correct. Mr. Hunsinger: Do you need any sort of, do you need special approvals from Department of Health for the kitchen? Mr. O’Connor: Every kitchen that is serving food needs to have a NYS Health Department permit. Mr. Hunsinger: You’re not concerned about your ability to get that. Mr. O’Connor: No. That has to deal with the cleanliness, setting up so it’s washable, type of equipment, having a water supply, we have town water and having an adequate septic system on premises. That will be a separate permit that I think we can certainly can comply with it and we’d apply to the town for a permit for the septic system if that’s the way we go as opposed to an out of district user contract with the town. They have a sewer line that runs up that part of the road, it’s a pressure, it’s a force main. Mr. Hutchins: But we’re not in the district. Mr. O’Connor: It may not be worth going through all that process of getting in the district and getting a contract. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, that’s right, it goes to the industrial park. Is that the only user? Mr. O’Connor: I think the apartment is on it, Eckert is not it, or whatever that pharmacy is down at the bottom of the hill. Mr. Schonewolf: How many parking spaces did we decide on? Mr. O’Connor: We measured parking spots, 1 spot for every 150 feet. Mrs. Moore: Per square feet of the okay, so maybe I . . . Mr. Hutchins: I just used internal floor and just floor area, I didn’t use the porch and I didn’t use the deck. I can adjust that. Mr. Schonewolf: Just give me a number. Mr. Deeb: You have enough room. Mr. O’Connor: What you see on the application itself is the use of the first 200 feet, 75, 200 feet, the lot is 580 or 570 feet deep so there is a great potential. Mr. Magowan: You had 12 Laura? Mrs. Moore: You had 14 or 15 spaces. Mr. O’Connor: On the first version we did. We laid it out and got the handicapped near the ramp and made sure that we had the 20 foot aisle but we can . . . Mr. Schonewolf: You’ve got nine on that drawing. Is that the minimum? Mr. O’Connor: That the minimum. Mr. Hutchins: That’s the minimum number of spaces required yes Mrs. Moore: Without the outdoor seating? Mr. Hutchins: That’s without counting the outside seating. Does the outdoor seating count for that? If it does then we can adjust it. Mrs. Moore: So the maximum would be 15 spaces. Mr. Hutchins: Yes. Mrs. Moore: So the board can look at 15 spaces. Mr. O’Connor: We’d be happy with 15. Mr. Magowan: it’s gravel anyway, you can always extend it out to the back if you feel you need more. I’d rather you keep it as minimal as you possibly can and keep more natural growth there. Mr. Hutchins: . . . expand versus too much. Mr. O’Connor: Most of the deck area will be used for display of the product, it won’t be for customer seating. I think the deck and porch were 1,400 sq. ft. The front porch will have no seating so you’re down to 900 sq. ft. and if you use half of that for display of goods you’re only talking 450 feet which would be another three parking spots, if my math is correct, 12 to 15 parking spots would be compliant. Mr. Deeb: You have seating inside? Mr. O’Connor: We’ve shown seating inside and on the plans that we’ve given you. I compared it when we put the application together kind of like Stewart’s or Bean’s. If you go up to Bean’s along that back row there are 3 or 4 tables in there where people sit right there and have something. Mr. Schonewolf: Especially at breakfast time. We’ve been there, done that. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments? Are we comfortable with, I’m not sure what we’ve decided on the parking. Mr. Schonewolf: A maximum of 15. Mr. O’Connor: We hope we need more. Mr. Hunsinger: Of course. Mr. Schonewolf: I don’t’ know what we’re going to say about the wastewater system –just say pending settlement of the wastewater system? Mrs. Moore: You can say . . . as satisfies sewer department requirements for connection if needed and final plans need to demonstrate which whether it’s a wastewater system or connection. Mr. Deeb: And just one last comment. I would think people enjoy sitting on that deck on a nice day. Mr. Hutchins: That’s what we were thinking. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes. Mr. Deeb: It sounds like you not going to utilize it a lot. Mr. Magowan: You’re not going to have a steel sander up there plow or something. Mr. Ehlert: We not realize it’s not zoned for full blown dining so we’re limiting it, but the country store was part of our intentions to begin with so we’re going to work with what you guys will allow. Mr. Ferone: It sounds like you’re going to focus like on breakfast, coffee, lunch. Mr. Hunsinger: So you’re going to do like subs and stuff like that? Mr. Ehlert: I would say sandwiches, yes. I think we want to have, because we’re going to be catering out of there, there is a little gourmet flare out to it and that’s what’s we’re looking to add to it not just a sub shop. Mr. Deeb: Homemade soups Mr. Ehlert: Exactly. Mr. Hunsinger: Just like Bean’s. Mr. Schonewolf: It’s a copy of Bean’s, it’s pretty close to the country store, it’s just got more room. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments from the board. We also have a public hearing for this project. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the board? No takers. Any written comments? Mrs. Moore: There is no written comments. Mr. Hunsinger: We’ll open the public hearing and let the record show no comments were received, we’ll close the public hearing. This is an Unlisted SEQR. Were there any concerns from any board members for SEQR? RESOLUTION SEQR – Site Plan 2-2015 William Ehlers, Jr. The applicant proposes Applicant proposes reuse of a 1,431.7 sq. ft. building for a Country Store / Market / Convenience store. Project includes building improvements with a 200 sq. ft. partial covered porch and installation of an outdoor cooler. Site work includes new landscaping and parking upgrades to access new porch areas. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Food Service shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; 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; No Federal or other agencies are involved; Part 1 of the Short EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Short EAF has been reviewed by the Planning Board; Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF, it is the conclusion of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as lead agency that this project will result in no significant adverse impacts on the environment, and, therefore, an environmental statement need not be prepared. Accordingly, this negative declaration is issued. MOTION TO APPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SITE PLAN 2-2015 WILLIAM EHLERT, JR., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan. Per the draft provided by staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mrs. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: Approval – you probably have a few comments there. Mr. Schonewolf: Did you have any additions? Mrs. Moore: I would look at item 3 where is says waivers granted, the applicant has provided stormwater so that’s no longer a waiver item so you can take that out. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan. And then I think you’re taking out Wastewater and Water supply only because you’re going to address it separately as a condition. Mr. Schonewolf: Pending settlement of a wastewater system because we don’t know what they’re going to do. Mrs. Moore: The remaining waivers would be traffic flow, soil logs and construction disposal. Mr. Traver: The rest of it will be shown on the revised plan to be submitted. Mr. O’Connor: Are you taking out, my cover letter of 12-15 you’re taking 2 and 4, Laura? But you still, location of all present and proposed utility systems, I guess we’ve shown that. Mrs. Moore: You’ve shown that. Mr. O’Connor: Take 1, 2 & 4 out. Mr. Hutchins: We don’t have grading. Mr. O’Connor: We don’t have topography on the plans, flat, the world’s not flat, slightly goes to the east, the grade is to the east. Land use district boundaries, soil logs, percolation test results, that’ll all be required if we do a septic system. Snow removal – we have that. Mr. Deeb: Touch on traffic flow, there shouldn’t be any more traffic than at that dance studio. Mr. O’Connor: I doubt that we’re going to have more in numbers, we’re probably going to have it more dispersed than when they have a class everybody comes and goes at a different time. Mr. Hunsinger: We should add something to the resolution that all lighting shall be code compliant. Mr. O’Connor: I anticipate that we will have an on-site designed septic system because the other way of getting it is just too expensive. You’ve got to get the district approved you’ve got to wait for DEC to approve the district and all the stuff that goes along with it. Mr. Magowan: There is plenty of land on it. Mr. Magowan: Separate out the system grease traps, Mr. Ehlert: I would think it would be less expensive. Mrs. Moore: So maybe one of the conditions would be revised plans will show landscaping, stormwater, parking of 15 spaces, lighting, sign location, wastewater system and that could be the wastewater system that is connected or the wastewater system that is installed on site. So that addresses that as a condition. Mr. Hunsinger: So now you only need to give her how many? Mr. O’Connor: I’ve got 9. Mr. Hunsinger: All set? Mr. Hutchins: I’m sorry, one clarification, we talked about up to 12 to 15 parking spaces, or 15? Mr. Schonewolf: Maximum 15. Mr. Deeb: I’d think you’d want to have whatever is needed as far as, I wouldn’t put a maximum on it. Mrs. Moore: The board has discretion to talk about the number of parking spaces. The number of parking spaces in this case is 150 sq. ft. of the floor space so you indicated how many spaces were needed for the site is the question. Mr. Hutchins: Based on, the building interior floor area it’s 9, it’s 1,335 sq. ft. Mrs. Moore: So he obviously meets the required 9, but the board can discuss additional spaces if they wish because that’s the discretion of the board. You can discuss, he wants up to 15 spaces or he wants up to 20 spaces. He has adequate room to put that number of spaces on the site without interfering with permeability or things like that on the site. Mr. Ferone: I think one of your considerations is snow removal, where are you going to put that if you don’t have enough spaces, you don’t want to take up your nine spaces with snow, then you have no spaces for your customers to park. Mr. O’Connor: At the very end of this, I don’t know what you truthfully have. Mr. Hunsinger: We can see that one. Mr. Hutchins: You’re going to push the snow to the back. Mr. O’Connor: We can angle the parking toward the back so there is a more throughway, just push the snow back this way. Mr. Hunsinger: Or as we mentioned earlier, you could push it to the side Mr. Ehlert: You can push some of it out here, and you can push it back in here. Mr. Hutchins: We’ve shown nine. The reason I asked the question if we go to 15 we’re going to have to go back here into the back a fair amount. Mr. Deeb: For clarification Tom what you’re looking for is . . . Mr. Magowan: What I’d do is start with 9, if you know if you had you’re allowed to 15. Mr. Hutchins: That’s fine, my point, are we saying we’re going to construct 15 spaces I don’t know if . . . Mr. Deeb: Tom, what I was trying to say, for clarification what you’re trying to do is get the number of spaces by square footage what the building is. So whatever’s required by code, that’s the number of spaces you’re going to have. If it works out to be 9 you’ll have 9. If you have to include the square footage of the deck then you might have to have a little more, a couple more. Am I right in that assumption? Mr. O’Connor: I say we have a minimum of 9 up to 15. Mr. Hunsinger: That what’s I was thinking. Mr. Hutchins: I’ll work that out. Mr. Deeb: I didn’t think you wanted to put a number on it, you wanted to put what was needed. Mr. Hutchins: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: We already kind of said it’s gravel anyway. Mr. O’Connor: It’s gravel underneath that deck already. Mr. Hunsinger: Is that clear enough Laura? Mrs. Moore: Yes. Mr. Schonewolf: She’s got all the revisions. RESOLUTION: Approve –SITE PLAN 2-2015 WILLIAM EHLERT, JR. An application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes reuse of a 1,431.7 sq. ft. building for a Country Store / Market / Convenience store. Project includes building improvements with a 200 sq. ft. partial covered porch and installation of an outdoor cooler. Site work includes new landscaping and parking upgrades to access new porch areas. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 of the Zoning Ordinance Food Service shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was advertised and held on 1-20-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 2-2015 WILLIAM EHLERT, JR., Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb; Per the draft provided by staff with the following conditions: Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; Revised plans will show the landscaping plan, stormwater, parking necessary for the site, lighting, sign location and a wastewater system. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mrs. White, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Ehlert: Thanks again Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you, good luck. Mr. Hunsinger: Next project on the agenda is Subdivision 1-2015 Preliminary & Final Stage Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures. Laura. Mrs. Moore: the first part of this application is a subdivision a proposed 2 lot commercial subdivision. The existing lot is 22.87 acres and the proposed lots will be 20.71 to include the Northway Plaza buildings and 2.16 for the proposed restaurant. There are no proposed changes to the building or the site with the 20.71 acre parcel. The project does not involve new road, access points or utility infrastructure. The new parcel of 2.16 is the corner area of the Northway Plaza at the crossroads of Route 9 and Quaker for purpose of the subdivision the physical road frontage is from Quaker Road. Access at the southern end of Route 9 will be maintained as part of the Northway Plaza, that includes changes as part of the site plan. The applicant has requested a waiver from Sketch review with a submission of preliminary and final subdivision plans. The Board will need to complete, just a reminder, a review of the Long EAF, preliminary plat and final plat prior to a full discussion of the site plan. You can ask obviously some questions about the site plan during the subdivision but the remaining of your questions should be taken care of at site plan. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. Good evening. Mr. Padgett: Good evening. Tony Stellato with CHA Engineers for RCG Ventures. I have a power point, it’s about 25 slides to give you the overview of the whole site or if you want to just take the subdivision first, it’s up to you. Mr. Magowan: No, we’ve got popcorn and soda. Mr. Stellato: I can go through it quickly I promise. Laura if you wouldn’t mind being my, the first slide is just a graphic that we use to show who the existing tenants are and I know that you can’t read who the existing tenants are from here but we’ve done an accounting of who’s there and what space is filled and what type of uses are there and they will be relevant when we show you the parking calculation. This is an existing, not an existing, actually a former aerial view that shows that the Home Depot is up at the top, this is the Hobby Lobby recently completed the strip, Panera is at this end, this is the former automotive center, Monro Muffler that has been demolished and right now that site is leveled and that site has been filled in with stone. It’s got some construction fence around and it’s pretty much ready to go. Laura if you would please. This slide shows how the Texas Roadhouse will fill in that empty spot, if we pop to the next slide you can see a blow-up of what Texas Roadhouse will look like, it’s a 7,300 sq. ft. building, the Quaker Road access, I think I might just hit you in the eye Laura. The Quaker Road access stays as is, the southern Route 9 access is here and everything within the limits of the subdivision line would be repaved regarded and if we flip the page again the subdivision plans again shows the subdivision down here, it’s a 22.9 acre property, we’re taking 2,16 acres for the Texas Roadhouse. That leaves 20.7 acres for the rest of the plaza keeping in mind that the Home Depot building right now is a separate parcel owned by Home Depot. The Texas Roadhouse site, the 2.16 acre site would remain under ownership of RCG Ventures, it will just be a separate LLC to hold it. The building will be built and owned by Texas Roadhouse and there will be, there are currently five directional parking easements between all tenants and that will survive the subdivision so there will be the ability for Texas Roadhouse to park in the main plaza and there will be the directional ability of the other tenants to use the Texas Roadhouse parking. This just gives you the parking calculation, I know you can’t read, the result is we’re going to be one space over the town’s requirement with the Texas Roadhouse and the site plan bulk and area is all compliant. We meet or exceed all the setback and all of the minimum coverages including permeabie. We’ve got a small area of porous pavement that we’re counting toward our permeable coverage. It doesn’t do a whole lot for us for stormwater, although it does something but it doesn’t get us to the water quality requirement that we need so we’ve also have, I’ll get to that a little bit later. Laura if you would flip again please. If I’m going to fast slow me down, I’m trying to spare you the long presentation. We’ve met a couple of times with the Fire marshal’s office, once about a year ago when we were in, it included a Panera, by the way, Panera has decided to stay in their space and that’s why this project has become Texas Roadhouse only. We showed both tractor trailer and fire truck access, have reviewed that with the Fire Marshal’s. Two things they’ve concluded we need to do, item 1 is in this area right here in the Route 9 entrance there is a piece of mountable curb at the entrance of the state has done, then the curbing as it comes into the site, the island itself is higher six inch regular curb, the Fire marshal would like that curb removed. We proposed to replace with a mountable curb to match what’s out in the right of way. I think the Fire Marshal would prefer no curb and just have it straight and we’re agreeable to either we left as it was for now, we felt we’d bring it to this board and certainly there is some advantages to leaving some sort of a curb there, it does provide a function in channeling traffic, the fire truck could navigate it. I believe the Fire Marshal is okay with it but it’s I think a communication that needs to be closed out after this board has discussed it . . . The second item that we need to fix is up here, this is the main driveway, this is the right turn to come down in front of Peter Harris and Hobby Lobby, this is a pretty tight curb right now and in order to provide clearance for the fire truck turning . . . there, we’re going to reset the curbing along this radius to make it wider and add a little bit of pavement there to give a little bit more room there. Laura if you would please. Landscaping plan and I think I prefer to talk about this on the next slide which is in color, landscaping is a variety of red maples, red oaks, little leaf lindens with some planting around the building and shrubs, perennials are around the building. We’ve met or exceeded the landscaping requirements of the town, the interior landscaped area is 14.3 % of the property, the requirement is 10, likewise, if we’re providing one tree per 11.7 parking spaces we’re required to do one per 15 and our landscape coverage is 30% and that’s the requirement. Laura if you could flip to the next slide please. There is also a number of trees, 21 trees out in this area, this is Hobby Lobby right here that were and I’m not sure of the back story here but apparently they were taken down during the renovations the Hobby Lobby and the owner was cited for it, so part of this project they’re proposing to replace them and there will be a variety of red maple, red oak and little leaf lindens similar to what’s there now was there that was removed. Next slide please Laura. The utilities are pretty straightforward, water line is just a connection to an existing water line back in here, a six inch lateral that’s going to come back to into the loading and dock area of the building with the fire department connection om that which won’t interfere with any landscaping around the building. And on the next slide we show sewer and again it’s a connection to an existing sewer line that flows this way and then out the site that way. We’re putting in a six inch lateral, and a six inch bypass there is a 3,000 grease trap here that is required as part of the restaurant operation. On the next slide we show the storm concept, we are reusing much of the storm infrastructure that’s there. This is a redevelopment site where we’re developing within the limits of the existing pavement, we’re required to provide a certain amount of water quality mitigation even though we’re not expanding, in fact we have less pavement now than was before. We are proposing to provide, this wasn’t on the plans but it is in the SWPPP, there is a treatment unit in this location that covers most of the front half of the site and we’ve got an oil and sand and water separator back in the loading dock. We submitted a SWPPP, it’s been reviewed by Chazen, we’ve received some comments, there are a number of issues that we need to respond to, there is nothing there that we think we can’t address in the next submission and plans, nothing that we disagree with so we believe we’ll have a sign-off letter from Chazen before the next meeting I would think. Our plan is to come out of this meeting with any comments that the board has, make some revisions to the plans and resubmit them and Chazen’s sign-off on the SWPPP and the stormwater plan at that point. Laura, dry utilities again are both underground, electric coming from this area just connecting to an existing pole over here and gas comes from Route 9 and they are going to install a new gas service into the building from there, pretty straightforward. Everything is buried. Which brings us to the building elevation. This is later on there is a photograph but this shows the color scheme and the signs and the flags, the finishes are brick veneer under the windows, this is wood siding, stained cedar and some green trim. There is, if you flip to the next page Laura please there is some cmu here and here and also there is a small amount of cmu around the dumpster enclosure will be painted to match the siding. There is a finish schedule that was part of the building elevations in your packets and you can actually see what the actual colors are, the roof is a standing seam metal and if you flip Laura there is, we’ll do signs first. There are three signs proposed, I’ll be here Thursday night before the Zoning Board, there are a couple of variances requested but essentially there are 3 proposed signs –two wall signs and a monument sign. The, with respect to location the wall signs are compliant, the monument sign is not, we are looking for a setback variance because of the way the right of way line cuts back into the site back here. That will be 45 feet from that right of way line. There is an existing sign over here that’s in a similar location which I believe meets the 15 foot setback and Laura if you’ll flip the page two existing signs along on Route 9 they are similar, Home Depot is the top sign, and both of them, these signs predate the current owners of the plaza, they don’t really have any ability to change them, they are tied into the leases that those tenants have so they are requesting a third free-standing sign for the Texas Roadhouse. And then details of the wall signs the larger wall sign is not compliant with respect to area and it’s simply designed to fit that space up on the building that peak space on the building. Mrs. White: Could I ask you to go back one slide? Mr. Stellato: Sure. Mrs. White: Can you lift your laser point at where that monument sign would be in comparison to the other two? Mr. Stellato: Right there. Mrs. White: Okay, thank you. Mr. Stellato: And then one more please, and this is the monument sign detail and again the sign is compliant with respect to the area, however, not with the respective setback which raises a question about the area. I understand, more on that Thursday night. Laura if you would just flip one more please. Site lighting, we’ve proposed, we’ve shown a photometric plan and we’re proposing 20 foot high poles, they are a high pressure sodium fixture, there is downcast fixtures, cut off lenses, 400 watt bulbs, pretty standard, pretty similar to what’s there now. There is also lighting on the building, there will be some goosenecks on the building providing walkway lighting around the building and there is some accent lighting on the building to, some LED lighting around some of the architectural features on the building. On the next slide we show a nighttime photo, this is an actual photograph although I don’t know where this is, we got this from Texas Roadhouse’s recently constructed. Shows the finishes, the architecture is almost identical with the exception of this building doesn’t have some of the façade in the background that projects above the roofline but the lighting is there, it’s, there are goosenecks on the building, there is LED lighting around the, they are white LED lights that are around the architecture and around the peak of the building. You can see how the sign is lit and also the flagpole is lit and the flags are lit with these signs on the corners of the roof, this location. And that is the reader’s digest version and I can slow down and go back to anything you want to cover in more detail. Mr. Traver: And you just prompted a question in my mind, the lights to illuminate the flags are directed up toward the sky? Mr. Stellato: They are shining up on the flag, they are not . . . Mr. Traver: That’s not code compliant. Mr. Stellato: There is a flag law that kind of pre-empts . . . Mr. Schonewolf: American flag at night you’ve got to keep it lit. Mr. Hunsinger: The Ramada is, their giant flag pole hides a cell tower. Mr. Stellato: I actually did that, that was with my project way back when. Mr. Traver: Okay thank you for answering that. Mr. Schonewolf: I think you ought to revisit that curb because if you had a sign off that the owner is not responsible because if you get four or five inches of snow at night and that aerial truck pulls in and bottoms out you’re looking at a big bill. Mr. Stellato: So you’re saying that you’d prefer eliminating the curb . . Mr. Schonewolf: Absolutely those things are deadly in the winter because you can’t see them. Mr. Stellato: Yes, the idea behind the mountable curb is it’s supposed to be navigable but the Fire Marshal was concerned about just that. Mr. Schonewolf: It snow piles up . . . Mr. Magowan: You’ve got a little ramp in front of them. Mr. Stellato: And we’re happy to eliminate it, I think our position on it is if the Planning Board thinks the curb is important to the function of the flow of traffic then we’ll leave it in but we would just as soon take it out, pave it and paint it. Mr. Schonewolf: Nothing but trouble. Mr. Hunsinger: Can you clarify exactly where you’re talking about. Mr. Stellato: Sure, right at the corner and we can do this on an aerial if it’s better. You want to do on the aerial? Mr. Hunsinger: Is this the internal piece? Mr. Stellato: Yes, it’s the internal piece, this piece of curbing right here, was put in by the state, it’s a piece of DOT mountable curbing and the Fire Marshal was not so concerned with that piece, they are concerned about when they get in to the site, they where they were worried about. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, Okay. Mr. Stellato: But right now that’s a standard six inch curb is short and it would still be six inch curb if we made it a mountable curb, we’d just cut the paver back a little bit so that they could ride up on it. They would rather not do that, they would rather us just remove it, pave it flush and paint it. Mr. Hunsinger: I mean, I work in Northway Plaza, there is some real tricky internal transportation issues that were supposed to be remedied two or three site plan reviews ago. It was when there was going to be two outbuildings, one was an unknown, the other was the Eckerdt Drug and the sections of the traffic patterns that were going to be modified were up near the post office, the four corner that’s internal to the site and also the parking area in front of Peter Harris. If you’ve ever been there when there is cars coming in and out of the post office it is amazing that there aren’t accidents there every half hour. I mean because cars, you have to wait for people to come in and out and if you’re not patient and willing to wait there is just not enough room and you have the same problem at the other entrance into that little parking area by Peter Harris. On top of that, well you are going to address some of the issues with the four corners with this. The other phenomenon which is really bizarre is when people are exiting at the red light they seem to think the incoming traffic is a left hand turn out and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve nearly seen head on collisions from people exiting the plaza thinking they can drive in the incoming lane. Mr. Stellato: Yes, we talked about that at the meeting at the Fire Marshal’s office too. What we suggested and I’ve actually gone out there since then and I think there is two things that we could easily improve on there –one is we could restripe that yellow center line because it is pretty faded. Mr. Hunsinger: That would help a lot. Mr. Stellato: In additionally we could extend it, the center line stops I think shorter than it should and if we extended that further into the site to better define the incoming and outgoing lanes it would, as you come out, the driveway breaks to a right hand curb and at the same time it splits into two lanes and it causes the driver to I think misjudge where he should be and if the yellow line was just extended back a little bit further to the four before that decision point that the driver has to make I think it would help solve that, it wouldn’t completely eliminate it I think still be something there but I think we could improve that a lot. Mr. Hunsinger: If you draw the line correctly there should be no room for two lanes exiting because it backs up when it doesn’t need to because the right hand is right hand out only and it’s easy to go right on red there because there is not that much traffic . . . Mr. Stellato: So we could look at in addition not only striping the center line but striping that white line between that left turn and right turn lanes on the way out and see if we can get that as long as possible so we could better channel the cars to stay in the appropriate lanes. Mr. Hunsinger: One of the concerns that I have with your current plan when you drive into the plaza from Quaker Road almost as soon as you come into where the driveway ends and the parking area begins there is a guard rail on your right and it’s not clear on this plan where that guardrail is. Mr. Stellato: It’s pretty far up I believe, keep going maybe to the enlarged color plan, two more slides. Mr. Hunsinger: No, down in the southwest corner. Mr. Stellato: Are you talking about the guardrail that’s here? Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, and there is quite an elevation change there which I think is why the guardrail is there, the guardrail was put in I believe when Hobby Lobby was approved so they could back trucks up to the loading dock. Mr. Stellato: Well the Hobby Lobby . . . way up here? Mr. Hunsinger: it’s almost where your, I think it’s where one of yournew islands is. I think the guardrail comes out that far which is why I raise it as a concern. Mr. Stellato: I don’t think so, I think there is a piece of guard rail in there, I’ll have to go back out and look, but we’re not extending pavement beyond in this area, we’re not extending pavement beyond the existing limits of pavement. We’re not taking any slope and filling it and converting it to anything. Mr. Hunsinger: The guardrail is, now would be in your driving lane, it crosses what is now your driving lane. Mr. Stellato: Up in this area here? Mr. Hunsinger: Yes. Mr. Stellaso: I don’t recall that, I’ll have to go out and look at it. Mr. Hunsinger: I drove in there this morning specifically to look at it. Mr. Magowan: You can see it coming in and that’s what this is right here is a guardrail right? Mr. Traver: No. Mr. Magowan: Up here, If you look up here what the line is and the dots it’s a guardrail. Mr. Stellato: You’re talking about this, this is guardrail here but it ends right here. Mr. Hunsinger: It’s easier to show you here on this. Mr. Magowan: Oh, that’s where it starts going down behind the building. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, in fact I think it even, it’s like right here. If you look at the guardrail . . . there is a driveway behind it going back here Mr. Magowan: That’s where it starts dropping down to go behind the building, that’s where you get your elevation difference. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s what I’m saying, the guardrail . . . Mr. Stellato: Because there is two levels, there is two different elevations. Mr. Hunsinger: Right, yes. Mr. Stellato: Well we are be doing, we are going to be regarding that, there is a lot of ups and downs in there and we’re going to be regarding that entire area so that it flows smoothly from edge to edge so the guiderail will not be required, but you’ve raised enough of an uncertainty in my mind that I need to go out and look at it again Mr. Magowan: On this plan here it shows it from your island you have your guardrail right at the end of the parking lot, it starts at that little island there at the beginning. Starts right there at the beginning, the straight line and the circles is your guardrails . . . so you have it here, because that is quite a descent down, so, even if you do grade that it’s still going to be quite a, and if someone slides you’re just going to be going down. Mrs. Moore: Can I interrupt the board for a second? There is a lot of talking so it’s difficult to hear that so if one person talks it would be better. Mr. Hunsinger: Thank you. That’s my job. Mr. Stellato: All right so we have submitted a grading plan so my task is going to go back and re-visit that to make sure that that guiderail and that elevation difference has been considered and we may or may not need to take another look at that area. Mr. Hunsinger: The other comment that I wanted to make about against, about 2 or 3 site plans ago there was a fairly major stormwater mitigation plan that was developed and it was in conjunction with the town, NYS DOT as well as the plaza owner and it was, it actually involved a lot of the area south of your site. I don’t know if you were involved in that. Mr. Stellato: I’m familiar with it. Mr. Hunsinger: And I just, we really need to ask what the status of that is because it was part of the site plan review that was being considered. Mr. Stellato: There was a proposal when there was a two tenant out-parcel, it was going to be Texas Roadhouse and Panera. There were two pieces of property that were going to be transferred, one is here and one is over here. This piece of property was going to be transferred from the county to the developer, this piece was going to be transferred from the state to the county I believe. The stormwater system was going to be located in this area right here. The developer was going to pay to install it, in return he gets some land here that he needed to make the out-parcel work for the two buildings. We chased it with the state for almost a year, the county was on board, we met with Jim Lieberum, he loved the project, even had some funds from that the county was going to match a portion of the funds to do the project. We could not get the land transaction, the developer could not get the land transaction to happen with the state, we got some very unofficial correspondence from them that basically led us to conclude that the state wasn’t interested in owning the system. Without the state it’s not a viable project so it’s still there, the design, Boswell did the engineering for it, the design is still there, the plans still exists. This development respects the plans and it could still happen but at this point there is no plans to build it without the cooperation of the state it just can’t go forward. So the out-parcel was redesigned, Panera is staying where they are, its’ been modified from two businesses to one business it’s a little less intensive, we’re not taking this piece here and this is what we’re left with. It’s unfortunate, there doesn’t seem to be a solution that everybody can agree with. Mr. Hunsinger: There is a tremendous amount of stormwater that runs down Route 9, it also runs down that parking lot, a heavy rain storm it’s almost like a stream, and it all goes right into Halfway Brook. Other questions comments from the board? Mrs. Moore: You do have a public hearing for the subdivision. Mr. Hunsinger: So there is no other questions or comments from the board? We do have a public hearing scheduled, this is for the subdivision. Do you have written comments Laura? Mrs. Moore: I do not have written comments Mr. Hunsinger: Are you here for the public hearing sir? Mr. Spoerl: Not for the subdivision. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, for site plan review? What’s the will of the board? It sounds like there are some unanswered questions. Mr. Traver: Well on the subdivision I would think we could move forward with that, the site plan is going to be changing, we don’t know exactly how . . . but I don’t see why we couldn’t subdivide the property. Although we would need to do SEQR for that. Mrs. Moore: You could open the public hearing for site plan as well and that way they would both be open and you could hear those comments and if you wished to table both of them you could do that. Mr. Traver: I guess my only concern as far as the subdivision would be the SEQR aspect and how that might be, how the changes in the project potentially might impact. Mr. Hunsinger: It kind of makes sense to keep the subdivision and site plan together. So would it be most appropriate to table the subdivision before we move on to discussion of the site plan? Mrs. Moore: It’s still pending, I would keep them both open because you apparently want to hear comments on both aspects. I would open the public hearing, leave the public hearing open for the subdivision and move forward and open the public hearing for the site plan. Mr. Hunsinger: Because they are listed as two separate items on the agenda which was why I thought we should conclude one before we move to the other. Okay so there is no additional questions or comments from the board on the subdivision? Now we’ll move on to the site plan. Questions on the site plan? Mr. Traver: Well do we have to settle the issue of the subdivision first then do the site plan project. I know they are separate agenda items so do we need to sort of finish one for tonight and start the next one. Mrs. Moore: I’m not suggesting that, I’m suggesting you open both public hearings so that you have comments on the record for this project. Mr. Traver: No I Understand that I mean if we . . . Mrs. Moore: And then you’ve both heard both comments you can table them separately. Mr. Traver: I see, okay, that’s fine. It doesn’t really matter in terms of our process. Mr. Hunsinger: Any other questions comments on the site plan? Landscaping, lighting, signs, color scheme? Mr. Ferone: Signage, they are going to look for a zoning variance on the sign, the monument sign. It just seems like there is a lot of signage, you have this big sign on the building, you’re looking for a monument sign and with all due respect it’s kind of ugly to me, red, green, a lot of different colors. Mr. Schonewolf: It’s Texas. Mr. Ferone: This is the Adirondacks. I know it’s branding, Mr. Stellato: Some of it you know, we do this all the time and sometimes it’s branding, sometimes Lowe’s wants blue and gray, but I think in this case Texas Roadhouse is trying to create not only a brand but also, you know, an ambience, the building is supposed to be reminiscent of an old Texas Roadhouse and they feel that this façade, this sign, and the whole package is part of the experience because they need that to establish who they are and what the experience is. So I get the comment, that’s why we’re here talking about it. Mr. Ferone: There is a lot of lighting. The comment about the lights on the flags which I understand and if the edging lighting the big sign you know I don’t know if they would be open to just kind of toning it down a little bit. Mr. Stellato: I’d be more than willing to bring back to them any kinds of direction or comments that this board and the zoning board has in respect to that. Mr. Ferone: And again, that’s my comment, . . . Mr. Schonewolf: They are trying to create an awareness by being unique and I think they feel because they are down there in the corner they’re going to get buried a little bit. And they are. That’s a legitimate . . . Mr. Magowan: The way I see they’re pointed out, they are kind of pointed southwest, hang out they are not perpendicular to Quaker or 9, they are kind of at an angle there, you’re going to see Texas Roadhouse coming down Aviation Road, you’re going to be able to see it coming up Quaker and you’re going to see it going north on Route 9. Mr. Ferone: I think they’ve got more exposure than . . . Mr. Magowan: So you’ve got the huge overly . . . Mr. Hunsinger: I think it’s going to overwhelm the intersection. Mr. Magowan: It overly sized in the front of the building up above you’re not going to miss that and then maybe a sign down there on the other side in the backside near Panera Bread along the, just to let you know it’s in that plaza, It’s going to be a compromise, you want to put all these monument signs out near the road and then you want that huge one up above, the flags alone are the eye catcher, that are lit at night, but if you have a visual coming down Aviation and up Quaker and way it’s angled at Route 9 you’re going to see it, it’s right there. Mr. Hunsinger: This is a lot closer to Route 9 than other buildings. Mr. Deeb: I think it’s the most visible . . . you’ve got the hat on top of the lone star state . . . Mr. Magowan: Well bring that back and have them chew on it. Mrs. White: And plus it’s just where it is in relationship to the two existing monument signs. You have three big signs like that right there, it looks like a lot. Mr. Stellato: Yes, I agree. When you look at those two existing monument signs I’m not really sure how to explain that because there is two Home Depot signs, they are right next to each other but we can’t change it. My client acquired the plaza with those signs and with the rights of those tenants to have those signs, and while we would love to convert one of them to a sign for the Texas Roadhouse we can’t. We don’t have the ability to take away what those tenants already have. Mr. Ferone: Have you got the option of adding your sign there though? Mr. Magowan: Where are you going to put it, it’ll be subgrade by the time you put it on the bottom. Mr. Stellato: Those signs are full, they are, could we put it lower on the, could they add panels to the monument sign, possibly. Mr. Schonewolf: It wouldn’t do you any good though. Mr. Stellato: Yes, Mr. Ferone: You don’t get top billing. Mr. Stellato: I suspect that Texas Roadhouse is going to ask for consideration of the signs that they’ve proposed, we expect that there is going to be comments; there is going to be review, there is going to be some back and forth and hopefully some compromise if that’s what both boards want. Mr. Magowan: That basically all I ask get a compromise like you said the square footage on the building up above it happens to go right in between the peaks, it fits it nice, but in our codes it’s too big, but yet if you shrink it down it’s not going to, so there is the compromise. Maybe look the other way on that one for a monument. Mr. Stellato: Is it the board’s inclination not to allow a monument sign at all or just to allow a smaller monument sign or a monument sign in a different location, I’m not sure? Mr. Traver; I think what I’m hearing the current proposal is not ideal so anything you can do to either make it more subdued or less prominent, the building signs are going to be pretty loud, pretty prominent and will do much to draw attention to the building I think. Mr. Magowan: Like I said with the building being close to Quaker and Route 9 I . . . Mr. Traver: I mean, I can certainly understand what they want it, it’s becomes almost a kind of a sign cold war you know, you’ve got the two other big signs, we ran into that further down on Glen Street, Rite Aid or something. So I can understand the intent I don’t know, I guess that’s the only comment I would have. Mr. Deeb: I’m okay with a smaller monument sign, one that would not be so intrusive, I don’t how the rest of you feel, they can’t get on the other monument. Mrs. White: What about on the other side on the Quaker Road side? Mr. Magowan: Well like I said, mention to them, you’re right on the corner, so you’re going to get the visual in three areas so dropping the other monument, I don’t know why you need a Texas Roadhouse sign right on the corner of the building which is 25 feet away from the building which is 10 feet off the road, you’re going to be parking in the parking at the light, you know what I’m saying? Mr. Traver: What if you and I know you spoke to discussions about signs with the existing tenants and they want to keep what they’ve got, but the two signs, I think everybody’s in agreement the two existing signs are pretty ugly. Have you gone to the tenants, the Home Depot and so on and said we’ll give you a prettier sign, we’ll add our Texas Roadhouse to it, getting rid of this proposed monument sign and the two signs that are there to come up with a new sign maybe it would be bigger that we normally permit, but would be in more compliance, more aesthetically pleasing, and would please your other tenants because, it would not be the ugly sign that is there now, it would accommodate their desire to have a fresher look, maybe freshen up the whole plaza and could accommodate Texas Roadhouse, maybe that would be something to discuss with them so they wouldn’t feel like they are giving up something, they would getting something better. Mr. Stellato: Your feeling is that both existing signs would have to be made to look similar? Mr. Traver: The two, they are basically the same sign, right? Mr. Stellato: One is bigger than the other. Mr. Traver: Okay, what I would try to argue to them, I understand that this may be an uphill battle, but I would try to argue I would come up with a design that incorporated the elements of the existing tenants plus adding the Texas Roadhouse, maybe putting the Texas Roadhouse on top. I have zero artistic talent but I’m just saying look we’re going to offer you that’s a lot better than what you’ve got because everybody, we hear comments that those signs are ugly, we think with one bigger, prettier sign we can accommodate the same mission of the sign of alerting people that your facilities are here, attracting people to this, giving a fresh look to the plaza, adding the attraction of, because if you have this, the restaurant sign for example and I’ve heard this with other applications, if you have a restaurant sign directly associated with, for example with Home Depot. Somebody going by might say, you know what we’ve been wanting to look at something that Home Depot has got for sale, maybe they’ve got a sale on vacuum cleaners or something. We can go in and we’ll check the Home Depot sale and then we’ll go eat at the Texas Road house so you’re linking these facilities are all available to the customer base, one stop shopping. They can shop in these places they can go to the restaurant and beautify the whole thing and maybe come up with a solution that will be a compromise and a long term solution for this plaza. Mr. Stellato: I’ll bring it to them, I’ll bring to them the idea they could possibly make some gain’s for existing tenants with sign size if they condensed what’s there. Mr. Traver: I can certainly understand why they are like whoa we don’t want to give up what we’ve got, but what if you said we’re going to give you something better and again I’m not an artist, I don’t know what that would be but I’m sure you could come up with something that on the Home Depot and the other, again adding this element and make the case that perhaps they might get business of some people that were going to the restaurant that seeing only the restaurant sign they might not necessarily, I mean local people would probably know, but by combining it all together it makes it kind of a . . . Mr. Stellato: We can ask, we can certainly ask. We’re dealing with a number of tenants who all have to agree but . . . Mr. Traver: But it would have to like I say, it would have to be a real sales pitch, You’d have to say what you’ve got isn’t great, People comment on how ugly it is, we’ll give you something that is fresh and new and better and we believe it will increase your customer traffic, because we’ll be pointing out that you now have a dining facility available. I don’t know, it might, but that would be a great solution. Mr. Magowan: Would you like to hire him? Mr. Traver: I’m just trying to come up with a compromise. Mr. Magowan: Steve, I have to say that’s a good idea, you’re absolutely right, it’s one shot on the eye and you can see everything instead of flashes, I like that Mr. Traver: I think if you did something new with the signage people might go in there just to see, you know something must have changed because those old ugly, it’s not the old ugly signs anymore, there is something new and fresh in there. Let’s go in and check it out. We’re going to the restaurant anyway because they just opened, let’s go check it out. Mr. Schonewolf: At least change one of them, the one that’s near the intersection. Mr. Traver: I certainly don’t think it would detract, I mean, it would seem to me that you would get at least as much attention as what you have proposed. Again I think maybe more by making it, by clearly communicating that it’s a plaza that offers all these amenities and these shopping and dining opportunities all linked together, not almost competing by having different signs. Mr. Stellato: Okay, I’ll certainly bring it back to them. Mr. Schonewolf: Aren’t you glad you asked? Mr. Stellato: I am. Mr. Magowan: Now we do tape record this if you need a copy. Mr. Stellato: I was taking copious notes. Mr. Hunsinger: Other comments? Okay, public hearing for site plan review. Sir, did you want to? Would you give up the table, please? If you could speak clearly in the microphone and state your name for the record. Mr. Spoerl: Richard Spoerl, Old Aviation Road. I just came in for some information but saw this. My concern is traffic pattern. Where you’re putting the sign up by the second entrance to that mall people coming down Route 9 are going see that, and say where is it, turn left on Quaker Road and go to go in there by the cemetery on that access which I believe is not a left hand turn or there is a no turn lane there so anybody coming down Aviation that sees that is going to go to turn left, stop and that could cause a traffic hazard in that left lane. Exiting that area you’re not supposed to turn left onto Quaker Road. That’s seems to be the main entrance and exit the way that building’s positioned. If we could put, move that curb from Route 9 to the other end, something like that, like what they did at Golden Corral, the forced only in, only out as a safety concern on Quaker Road entrance. Mr. Traver: The way the traffic has been going, I agree with you it is a hazard on the other hand my observation is the way the traffic has been building on Quaker in that intersection it’s hard to imagine that anybody would even think about trying to, because it’s normally blocked. Mr. Hunsinger: Oh, they do. I see it all the time. Mr. Spoerl: But there again you’re up and down hills so you’re coming up a hill with cars and next thing you know you’re out in traffic that’s coming down Aviation Road. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Did you have anything else you wanted to add? Mr. Stellato: No, Mr. Hunsinger: So we’ll do separate tabling motions for the subdivision and the site plan. Since we are looking at new information we’ll most likely table this to a March meeting? Mrs. Moore: Yes. Mr. Hunsinger: With a submission deadline of February 15th? Mrs. Moore: Yes. Mr. Traver: Is that doable for you, February 15th? You think you can get revised . . . Mr. Stellato: Oh yeah. Mr. Hunsinger: Is there a preference for the 1st or 2nd meeting? Mrs. Moore: In March, I do not have a schedule for March so you may choose. Mr. Stellato: We are I believe on in February for a final subdivision aren’t we? Mrs. Moore: No we were hoping to handle both the subdivision issues and site plan issues this evening so that you move to the sign variance application on Thursday. If the board tables both the applications the sign variance would also shift. Mr. Stellato: Okay, so we won’t be here Thursday for the sign variance? Mrs. Moore: No, so everything would shift to March and the same scenario could occur that the board could review both preliminary and final subdivision and then move to the site plan in one meeting and you move in to the variance the next night. Mr. Hunsinger: One of the motions that we can consider is the waiver request, does anyone have a problem with the sketch plan waiver request? I guess we don’t really need to do the waiver request, this wasn’t officially a sketch plan review but since they are coming back, in essence this became a sketch plan. Or do we still need to do one? Mrs. Moore: Just to make it concise. Mr. Hunsinger: Okay we’ll do one. RESOLUTION APPROVE – SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES MOTION TO APPROVE WAIVER REQUEST FOR SKETCH PLAN REIVEW FOR SUBDIVISION 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft provided by staff. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mrs. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None So the next motion would be a request to table the subdivision, preliminary stage subdivision Mrs. Moore: And final, because you’re looking at both so you’re tabling both preliminary and final Mr. Hunsinger: I guess I would recommend that we table to the March 17th meeting. Mr. Stellato: I think the 17th works fine for us. RESOLUTION TABLE – SUBDIVISION 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE FOR SUBDIVISION 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved its adoption seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to March 17, 2015 with a submission deadline of February 15, 2015 Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Schonewolf, Mrs. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None RESOLUTION TABLE – SITE PLAN 3-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 3-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Tabled to March 17, 2015. Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Schonewolf, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: None Mr. Hunsinger: See you in a couple of months. Mr. Stellato: Okay, thank you, just one question, just so I’m clear on action items, the one issue that was brought up with respect to the post office entrance / exit, is there something that was required with the Hobby Lobby approval that wasn’t built that you’re looking for or is there something specific there that we need to do. I understand the concern I’m just not sure I’m positive I know what you’re asking, whether you’re asking me to solve it or not. Mr. Traver: I think the Planning Office might have suggestions from earlier design. Mr. Hunsinger: Yes, I don’t know if there were ever drawings, I think we were, it was during a discussion on one of the prior site plans, it was raised as a concern and Mr. Lapper was representing the applicant at the time and said well when we come back with revisions to take into account these concerns. Mr. Stellato: Okay, Mr. Hunsinger: The discussion was that access road was going to be moved, because right now there is a curb cut there so that was going to be more of a parking lot rather than a definitive order but I don’t know if there was ever a plan put forward. Mr. Stellato: But that was before Hobby Lobby right and then Hobby Lobby came in and got approved. Mr. Hunsinger: But what happened with Hobby Lobby it was and we can go back and check the record there were discussions along those lines, the developer said well we’re only here for Hobby Lobby, we have future plans and when we come back we’re take care of it then. I don’t want to call it a bail and switch but it was, we recognize there is an issue, we will deal with it. It’s just not part of this . . . because Hobby Lobby was an existing building so there was no new construction. Mr. Stellato: Yes, Laura do you think I can come in maybe next week. I’ll work with Laura and Craig on that. Mr. Hunsinger: That’s going from memory not from records. Mr. Traver: I think there is certainly some familiarity at the town about the issues. Mr. Hunsinger: I’m not the only one that remembers that discussion. Mr. Traver: Well not specifically. Mr. Stellato: Okay, we can’t use the same argument again can we? Mr. Hunsinger: You can always try. Just before we adjourn included in your package this month was registration for the Saratoga Planning Conference, if you didn’t sign up it’s not too late, it’s next week, so call Pam. Mr. Traver: Unfortunately I’ve got a conflict this year otherwise I would definitely go. If anyone hasn’t gone I’d recommend it. Mr. Hunsinger: It’s next Wednesday, so next week at our meeting we can talk about carpooling. Mr. Magowan: Are we looking for another alternate? Mr. Hunsinger: We are. Anything else? Mr. Traver: The only comment I have are we still on record? I’m concerned and it’s probably more my hearing problem but the new microphones are great but I notice it’s harder to hear people particularly down at that end of the room, for me at least, without the mircophones. Mr. Schonewolf: That’s because they don’t shoot out. Mr. Traver: Well it used to be they came through the ceiling, the speakers. Mr. Schonewolf: They don’t anymore, it’s another improvement that didn’t work. Mr. Traver: It was okay but I couldn’t hear everything. Mr. Magowan: I think Laura needs to pull her microphone closer when she’s speaking. Are you shy at this thing? Mrs. Moore: No I am not shy. Mr. Traver: One set of mics is for the minutes and the other set of mics is so everyone in the audience and all of us can hear clearly what’s being said. Mr. Hunsinger: Is that how they work? Mrs. Moore: Please note that these microphones, the intent of them is to make them go away and use these discs. They will be disappearing. Mr. Schonewolf: But the discs don’t project out . . . Mr. Traver: If they would tie them in to the PA that would be fine. Mrs. Moore: Okay. Mr. Traver: It’s just that there is no amplification anymore and this wasn’t an issue, we didn’t have much of a public comment tonight but if we did I can guarantee with the additional background noise in the room there would be people complaining about it. Mr. Hunsinger: Anything else? Anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? Mr. Schonewolf: So moved. Mr. Ferone: Second Mr. Hunsinger: We have a second, all in favor say aye. Motion carried. See everyone next week. Thank you. On a motion the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted by Chris Hunsinger