Loading...
03-17-2015 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2015 INDEX Subdivision No. 6-2015 Maurice Combs 1. REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Site Plan No. 15-2015 Action Sign Co., LLC 2. ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No. 309.10-1-57 Subdivision No. 1-2015 Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures, LLC 9. PRELIM & FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 3-2015 Wesley Padgett for RCG Ventures, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Site Plan No. 5-2015 Leland Jarosz 19. Subdivision No. 10-2007 MOD. Tax Map No. 309.18-1-18.1 Site Plan No. 13-2015 Sandro MEI-RCG Ventures & RCG- 22. Queensbury, LLC's Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 DISCUSSION ITEM Stephen Ethier 28. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-37 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN GEORGE FERONE DAVID DEEB JAMIE WHITE, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT THOMAS FORD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on Tuesday, March 17, 2015. The first order of business is the approval of minutes from January 20th and January 27tH APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 20, 2015 January 27, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 20TH & JANUARY 27T", 2015, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brad Magowan: Duly adopted this 17th of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Next on the agenda is an Administrative Item. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS - PLANNING BOARD REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF SEAR REVIEW MRS. MOORE-This is a Type I subdivision. It's 9.24 acres. We're dividing it into seven lots. Lot size range from 1.01 to 1.45. It does require variance relief for lot size requirements, and the Planning Board is seeking Lead Agency status. Tomorrow evening the Zoning Board has a motion to consent to Lead Agency. It also has to go to the Town Board in reference to a water line extension, water line district extension, and then it would come back to the Planning Board sometime in April potentially, but I know the representative is here if you have any questions about the project. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from anyone on the Board? Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. RESOLUTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS SUB # 6-2015 MAURICE COMBS WHEREAS, the applicant proposes subdivision of a 9.24 acre parcel into 7 lots ranging in size from 1.01 to 1.45 acres. Subdivision: Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) requested from lot size requirements of the MDR zone. Planning Board may conduct SEAR review and provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begin an environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has identified the project to be a Type 1 action for purposes of SEAR review pursuant to 6 NYCRR 617. WHEREAS, the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the action because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be lead agency for SEQRA review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA form will be sent to the following agencies: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals; NYS DEC, NYS DOH. MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION 6-2015 & AREA VARIANCE 11-2015 MAURICE COMBS, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft resolution provided by staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of March 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Onto our regular agenda. The first item is a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SITE PLAN NO. 15-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED ACTION SIGN CO., LLC OWNER(S) PRIMAX PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 61 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES THREE (3) WALL SIGNS - EACH SIGN IS TO BE 69 +/- SQ. FT., AND INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SITE PLAN: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 140-7 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SIGNS IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCE: RELIEF FROM NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED, ILLUMINATION AND PLACEMENT OF SIGNS IN THE MS ZONE. THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE SV 9-15 SP 76-14, SUP 77-14 WARREN CO. PLANNING MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-57 SECTION 140-7 WAYNE GENDRON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes three wall signs, each to be 69 square feet and internally illuminated. Signs to be located on the east, west and south side of the building. The nature of the variance is the applicant is seeking relief for the signage proposed. The number of wall signs allowed is one at 30 square feet where the applicant proposes three. Wall signs on Main Street are to be located centered over each shop and only the left side sign is located over a door, where the other two are located over the window area and then on the brick side of the building on the east. Relief is also requested for having an internally illuminated signs where downcast exterior lighting is required. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. GENDRON-Good evening. How are you? MR. HUNSINGER-Good. If you could identify yourself for the record. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. GENDRON-Wayne Gendron with Action Sign Company. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Do you want to tell us a little bit about your project? MR. GENDRON-Yes. It's a proposed Dollar General for that site, starting in the spring and finishing in the spring in terms of construction. From what I gather, each sign is only allowed to be 30 square feet. Each space on the wall is significantly more than that. The signs, I believe, are aesthetically pleasing to the building. We're requesting the third sign on the front of the building in order to, as passersby come through just have more noticeability to it, to recognize the building. We're going to a freestanding sign because of the setbacks and the parking in the front of the building, but if you had a freestanding sign, you would have a sign facing both directions of the oncoming traffic, which we're requesting. Then you'd have a sign on the front of the building as well. I know you guys are, they do allow a freestanding sign, double sided freestanding sign. So in a lot of communities, I know this isn't every community, but a lot of communities consider a freestanding sign as two signs because that sign faces on both side. So realistically you'd have three signs on the location anyway if you had the double sided sign in front of the building as freestanding sign and then one over the entrance. So, 30 square feet of the south side, or, I mean, sorry, 20% of the wall space on the south side is roughly 290 square feet which obviously we're not looking for. We're looking for 69 square feet. The west side of the building, the 20% of the wall space is 496 feet. Again, we're looking for 69. We're not looking to go really too much above and beyond. We're very small compared to the size of the building, and that's what Dollar General has requested me to come in and ask for. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. GENDRON-Other than that, the internally illuminated, I know you guys don't, or you guys frown upon it, don't allow it, but I have examples of several businesses within a mile of that location that all have channel letters, internally illuminated signs. Not looking to get lost in the mix. We would put them all on timers so they would only be illuminated during the hours of operation. They wouldn't be on all night. They wouldn't be, you know, glaring at midnight. Because when they close at 9, 9:30, I'm not sure what hours they're looking to propose there, but they'd be on timers and they'd shut down at the time the business would shut down. So I don't think it's an overall detriment to the community, considering all the other internally illuminated signs within a mile of the business. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. DEEB-You don't know the exact hours of operation? MR. GENDRON-1 don't know the exact hours of operation, but most, I mean, I frequent the Dollar General. I have one over in Valatie where I live, and they close at 9 p.m. I can't imagine Dollar General's going to be open much later than nine o'clock. MR. MAGOWAN-So the number of wall signs allowed is one 30 square foot, right? MR. GENDRON-No, you're allowed two, I believe, according to the sign code. MRS. MOORE-It's one wall sign, one freestanding sign. The wall sign is limited to 30 square feet. MR. GENDRON-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-And what's the size of the freestanding? If you could refresh my memory. MRS. MOORE-I'd have to look it up, but again, it's only one wall sign per business. MR. MAGOWAN-And they're asking for three signs at 69 square foot each. MR. GENDRON-Correct, but if you look at the building elevation drawings which I believe that you guys have in front of you, I mean, they're very small compared to the size of the building. The actual embossed area of the sign, it's a very nice sign. It's not a flat, plastic sign. It's embossed so the letters standout. The actual area that you're reading is only 34 square feet. What takes up the extra 69 is the actual box that they have to build around it, but the actual reading area of the sign is only 34 square feet, which I know you guys don't consider that, but. MR. TRAVER-The illuminated area is 34 square feet? MR. GENDRON-Well, the box around it would obviously be illuminated, but the embossed area with the actual letters that say Dollar General are only 34 square feet. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. TRAVER-So the full 69 square feet is internally illuminated? MR. GENDRON-1 guess technically close to that, correct, but it wouldn't be, because obviously you have your metal borders around it. It wouldn't probably be quite 69 square feet, but you guys do look at the box and the sign as well. MR. TRAVER-And what, I'm sorry, what percentage of this wall space would this represent on your building? MR. GENDRON-1 didn't figure that out, but I know, from the notes that I was given, that, for instance the south side allowed is 20% of wall space, which is 290 square feet, or not to exceed 30 square feet. So, I mean, if we were allowed the full 20, we'd be allowed almost 300 square feet, which we're not looking for. We're looking for 69. 1 haven't done the math to figure out exactly what percentage that is. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm not trying to bust your chops on that, you know, but that's like double the size of what we're allowing. MR. GENDRON-1 understand. MR. MAGOWAN-And would kind of like set a precedent and have everybody else saying, well, Dollar General got this huge sign. MR. GENDRON-1 think if you look at the other businesses in the area that have multiple signs, freestanding signs, they're all internally illuminated, and I don't know if you got the same packet that I got. The Dollar Tree has quite a large sign, only 1.6 miles southeast of the proposed site that we're going for. That takes up almost there, you know, I'm going to say half of their storefront. We're not looking to, you know, maximize the whole front of the building. If you look at the elevation drawings, it's a very small portion of each side of the building. MR. DEEB-But what's the square footage of that sign, of the Dollar Tree? Do you know? MR. GENDRON-No, I don't. Do you guys have the same packet? MR. DEEB-I think we do. MR. GENDRON-With all the drawings, or all the pictures of the other businesses? Would you like me to pass it around and you can just take a look at it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes that would be helpful. Have you seen it, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, I have not. MR. MAGOWAN-Did you find that? MRS. MOORE-Forty-five square feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Forty five? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Thank you. MS. WHITE-So, 45 is the total of both sides or 45 on each side? MS. WHITE-Forty five on each side. MRS. MOORE-Forty-five on each side. It's total. In the Main Street zone, because we're encouraging Main Street development, it's sort of a, it's a monument sign versus a tall freestanding sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. GENDRON-A six foot height requirement on that as well, I believe is what I read. MRS. MOORE-Something to that effect, yes. It's limited in its height. MR. GENDRON-And Stewart's in the area, that's one example. If you flip to that, they've got two wall signs on the building. There's a lot of other buildings in the area, other commercial properties, that have more than one wall sign, and I think, in terms of the overall size of the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) building, as you can see Dollar Tree as it comes around. That takes up quite a large portion of the front of their store, compared to the elevation drawings that we supplied showing exactly, you know, the size of the sign on the building. I mean, I don't think it's quite as extensive as the other commercial buildings in the area. MS. WHITE-You mean the Dollar Tree that's in the plaza? MR. GENDRON-To be honest, I'm not sure. I was given a packet. I haven't been to the site myself. MRS. MOORE-I'm just thinking the Dollar Tree is not the one that's near, it may not be in the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in Glens Falls. MRS. MOORE-Glens Falls. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Or South Glens Falls, I'm sorry. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you know, looking at the design, you know, it's just like enormous. I mean, I don't have a problem with, you know, the one along the street, because that kind of goes the length of windows and up above. Is there anywhere you can shrink down the ones on either side, like over the door and the other side? I know you're trying to catch the eye of other people, but you're going to be able to see the one right when you're driving across the front. MR. GENDRON-1 do understand that point of view as well, but as you guys know, I mean, a lot of the sign business is legibility. You want to be able to read it from enough distance to have a reaction time to turn in. You don't want to be turning your head to the right or the left trying to read a sign as you're getting ready to pull into a driveway or into a parking lot. So it really comes down to traffic safety as well, and that's one thing we try to accomplish by having ample reaction time to reading the signs in order to be able to turn into the establishment. MR. MAGOWAN-You know what the whole idea of the Main Street plan was is for people to walk to the stores. MR. GENDRON-1 read that. MR. FERONE-The other thing is the sign on the east side of the building, that's a residential property right next door, and again, I don't know, I can't remember from memory how much clearage you have, but is it possible that you could go with two signs and not to have that one on the east side of the building? MR. GENDRON-No. If you don't have one on the east side of the building, you have no visual of what's coming up prior to pulling in. It's basically like having a freestanding sign facing both ways of the traffic is what we're considering. MR. HUNSINGER-The speed limit's 30 miles an hour. MR. GENDRON-Thirty five. MRS. MOORE-1 don't know. MR. HUNSINGER-Thirty-five. MR. DEEB-It's 35. MR. MAGOWAN-So that means they're doing 42. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, or 47. MR. MAGOWAN-Well they're taking a chance at 47. MR. GENDRON-Is that multiple lanes on that road as well? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it's a center turn lane. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I guess, I know Dollar General's worked hard to get the building where it's at, and I think there are some compromises on both sides, but, I mean, with 45 square feet standing sign on both sides, is there any way that you could, I would, you know, as to see if you 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) couldn't shrink down the Dollar Generals on the west and east side down to a, you know, 45, in my opinion, and just leave the large one across the front, or shrink it down. I mean, 69, 1 mean, you're talking 90 and 30, right, that's 120, and you're going for, that's 120, and basically you're, you know, you're 200 square feet. So you're asking for 80 square feet more, and like I said, once, I feel once we say okay to you, everybody else is going to say and come in and say well look at the Dollar General, look at this, look at that, and we're trying to keep the Main Street, you know, moving forward, but we don't want it like, what's down there on 17 in New Jersey there, where all the malls and everything, you know, it's just nothing but signs, you know. MR. GENDRON-1 understand, but, I mean, when's the last time you guys saw a Dollar General commercial? Their main form of advertisement are their signs. Not that people don't know what Dollar General is, but they don't have commercials out there. A large portion of people's advertisement is their sign, and we're just looking for the visibility coming down each side of the road so they can make an educated decision whether it's spontaneous to pull in and purchase something. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, I think, you know, especially when you start talking about signs, I think it really comes down to their target customer and their target market. Because if they're expecting repeat customers, then, you know, big signs maybe aren't as important. If they're looking for more drive by traffic, and more drive by customers than regular sort of repeat neighborhood customers, I would tend to agree with you. I think there's some compromise somewhere. A lot of the signs that you passed around that have big signs, they only have one on the building. There were several examples in that package, like the Northway Diner. MR. MAGOWAN-That's what I was thinking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and a couple of others in the immediate neighborhood. Some of the pictures are not in the Town of Queensbury. They're either in Glens Falls or something. MR. GENDRON-I'm not aware of that. They don't pay me to come out and survey the sites. They do that for me and give me a packet. I would come a little bit more prepared if I was paid to come out and do so. All I can do is argue the points that they've given me, in terms of the three signs. To be honest with you, I agree. I don't foresee a reason why they couldn't shrink down both sides to 45 square feet, but they definitely still would like the internal illumination and they would put it on timers that shut off at closing of business, and I'm not sure how many signs on that packet are in the Town of Queensbury, but everyone in that packet is an internally illuminated sign. There's no down lighting on any of them. MR. DEEB-Do you need the front sign to be as big? I mean, people are going to be driving back and forth, they're going to see it from the east and the west side. If you cut down the front side you're going to cut down your square footage, and then I guess you could cut down the sides somewhat and then now you've got a compromise all over, which maybe is more palatable for the Board. That's just a suggestion, but I think that you've got 207 square feet total? MR. GENDRON-Yes. MR. FERONE-That's the short side of the building, too. MR. DEEB-Right, and you don't, in the front I don't know if you need one as big, and then the side ones, I mean, rather than the 69, you'd talk about cutting them down somewhat. Maybe you don't have to go to 45. You can go. MR. MAGOWAN-Forty-six. MR. DEEB-I'm not arguing dimensions. I'm not telling you how you have to run your business. MR. MAGOWAN-Like I said, I think it would be more of a compromise. I think, you know, over 200 square feet of signage, in something that only allows 120 is, you know, is reaching. MR. GENDRON-But the 90 and another 69, now we'd be at 159. If we shrunk down the two wall signs on each side. Is that what you're proposing? I'm trying to understand. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I'm not proposing them, but I'm suggesting that that's my feeling of going and shrinking down, because I think, you're still going to be able to see it because it's right out there in the corner. The store's right on the road. I mean, you've got the road, the sidewalk and the store. So, I mean, it's not like it's set back, and I really visually see what you're saying. You're going to catch that corner and that sign up there if it's shrunk down, and then you've got 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) the big one on the front and then you've got the parking lot, you know, they're still going to come in on two wheels, so, you know, coming from the east. MR. GENDRON-Hopefully it's on four if they're not turning too fast. MR. MAGOWAN-So, and on the west side, I mean, you know, like I said, you're going to be able to see the door, and like I said, I agree with Chris on the marketing. You're targeting a certain person. They're going to know where that store is, and I'm asking for a compromise here. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, our role is to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. MR. TRAVER-Yes, they're asking for three fairly significant variances, and I would say the number of signs is not nearly as much of a problem as the size and the internal illumination. So I think that's probably what they're going to run into with the ZBA is some kind of compromise. MR. GENDRON-And to be honest, I've been doing this for 10 years and you always come to a Plan A and come to a Plan B. It's hard to fight all the way to the end, you know, you need to have a compromise somewhere. MR. DEEB-Well, shall we table it? MR. HUNSINGER-No, we're only charged to make a recommendation. MR. GENDRON-There's another meeting tomorrow night here. MR. HUNSINGER-We can pass this on to the Zoning Board and say that, you know, we do have some concerns about the overall size of the three signs. MS. WHITE-As well as the internal illumination. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. GENDRON-Has there been a Sign Ordinance change recently that has allowed illuminated signs in the past and now is not allowing them? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Although it really wasn't that recent, but a lot of the examples that you pointed out have not come before the Planning Board since the Sign Ordinance change. MR. GENDRON-So are they grandfathered in at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. About four, five years ago, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So 2009, but the Sign Ordinance itself is not, there have been Sign Variances before the Zoning Board itself. They might not necessarily have triggered coming before the Planning Board, but there have been Sign Variances going before the Zoning Board, and a few of them have been recent, and again the Zoning Board, in reference to Main Street, has not seen one until now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, this is the very first. Like just for example, you know, Hess, which is fairly close, that site plan pre-dates the Sign Ordinance. MR. GENDRON-1 understand, but when you have businesses that have been established in the area and have illuminated signs, it's hard for a new business to come in, and not necessarily Dollar General as a whole, but other businesses as well, if they're not allowed to have the same type of advertising that all the other businesses in the area are allowed to have. It really kind of, it's not making them, not necessarily focus, but they're not, they can't compete with all the other signs in the area. Especially when that's the largest one with advertisement. If they have something that's, you know, down lighting maybe, not as prominent, something that you're not going to see, where, you know, Hannaford has big huge illuminated signs. Look at any successful business, you know, from my area, Price Chopper, you look at Hannaford. You look at Wal-Mart. They all have big letters that state their name and they're big and bold and they stand out. That's how they generate their business. So I just don't want to get lost in the clutter, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it's a fair comment. MR. FERONE-1 think it goes back to Chris' comments earlier, though. I don't think there's any direct competition of Dollar General on that street. You've got gas. You've got Dunkin Donuts, 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) you've got some other businesses. So someone who's looking for Dollar General, over time they're going to know it's there. MR. GENDRON-Over time, but as he said, Hess is there. I'm sure they've got a big freestanding illuminated sign, one on the wall. You don't want somebody to look past that, you know, the goose neck lighting and the sign that maybe not stand out. Because I know I drive past businesses, and I don't notice them until I drive by them two or three times because their sign really isn't what it should be, and you'll be looking at that Hess sign or looking at a Hannaford sign because they stand out, they pop, and other businesses that aren't allowed to compete with that type of signage are really, you know, at a disadvantage. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like I said, I'm not really complaining on really the front side signage. It's more or less the side ones that I'd be asking for, you know, it would be a compromise of all three or whatever you can work out with the zoning, and the Dollar General, too. So do you want me to go with that one, or we have some concerns with the overall size of the signs? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, unless there's anything else the Board felt we should say. MR. TRAVER-Well, we could even say just the size of the variance. I guess they probably want us to be more specific. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's fair. The extent of the variances. MR. MAGOWAN-So not the size of the signs, but the. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the size of the signs and the extent of the variances. MR. DEEB-Did you want to mention illumination, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that's in the concerns. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that's in the concerns. MR. MAGOWAN-Do you want me to say size and illumination? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Internal illumination. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR SV#9-2015 ACTION SIGN CO., LLC The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Proposal for three (3) wall signs - each sign is to be 69 +/- sq. ft., and internally illuminated. Signs will be located on the east, west and south side of building. Site Plan: Pursuant to Chapter 140-7 of the Zoning Ordinance Signs in the Main Street shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief from number of signs allowed, illumination and placement of signs in the MS zone. The Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 SIGN VARIANCE NO. 9-2015 ACTION SIGN CO., LLC FOR DOLLAR GENERAL, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: The Planning Board, based on limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: The internal illumination, the size of the signs and the extents of the variances. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-Good luck. MR. GENDRON-Thank you. MR. DEEB-Good luck. MR. HUNSINGER-We have three items that were tabled until this evening. TABLED ITEMS SUBDIVISION 1-2015 PRELIMINARY& FINAL STAGE SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, LLC AGENT(S) A. STELLATO, CHA CONSULTING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 22.87 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 2.16 & 20.71 ACRES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SUBDIVISION OF LAND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 4-15, SV 4-15 LOT SIZE 22.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 TONY STELLATO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-This applicant proposes a two lot commercial subdivision. The existing lot is 22.87 acres and the proposed lots will be, one is 20.71 acres that includes the Northway Plaza buildings, and then a 2.16 acre parcel for a proposed restaurant, and I'll leave with that one and then you can talk about the subdivision, or do you want me to go into Site Plan? MR. HUNSINGER-They're separate agenda items, so we'll keep them separate for now. Okay. Good evening. MR. STELLATO-Hi. Tony Stellato, again, from Clough Harbor. I was here in January. I have a presentation that goes through the site plan changes that we made. The subdivision plan has not changed. Laura did not give you a subdivision plan. So if you want to throw that up, I have last, I have the present, if you want to see the subdivision plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe we should do both at the same time. MR. DEEB-I think it would be cleaner just to get this done. MR. STELLATO-If you pop it up it should be right in the directory. It's called TRH slideshow. Okay. So this is, it begins with my Site Plan presentation. We go through the changes, and then we could skip past that and show you the subdivision plan. So just keep flipping through, Laura. Keep going, keep going. You have to get all the way to the end of that presentation, and you'll see the previous presentation. Keep going. Okay. A few more slides. There is the subdivision. So the subdivision plan has not changed from the January meeting. We are just looking to parcel off the Texas Roadhouse parcel. It's a 2.16 acre property. Leaving 20.7 acres of remaining lands at the Plaza. Since nothing's changed, unless you want to go all the way back through it. MR. HUNSINGER-Does anyone have any questions on the subdivision itself? MR. TRAVER-No. MS. WHITE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Let's talk about the Site Plan. MR. STELLATO-All right. Laura, would you mind going all the way back to the beginning and I'll take you through the changes quickly. Revised Site Plan is up on the screen. Very minor changes. Laura, if you wouldn't mind flipping to the next one. We've basically done four things since the last Planning Board meeting in January, or three things, I'm sorry. We have addressed some minor comments received from Water and Sewer Department, mostly in the form of notes on the utility plan. We have addressed comments on the SWPPP from Chazen, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) and Chazen has, I believe, written a letter signing off on that. So stormwater comments have been all satisfactorily addressed per your consultant engineer, and then finally we have made some changes to the plans, based upon our conversations here in January, and, Laura, if you wouldn't mind flipping through this. I'll take you through them, slide by slide, to kind of recap what the issue was and how we addressed it. The first issue was the southern driveway on Route 9. That was the driveway that we were proposing to replace curbing with manible curbing. The Fire Marshal's Office had some concerns about it, as well as some Board members had some concerns about the manible curbing restricting fire and emergency equipment access. We have changed that to painted cross-hatching. We still show a median in that driveway. It's just paint now. So we're restriping the crosswalk and the median, and then the next slide, there was a concern about the main driveway, the driveway that comes up adjacent to Panera Bread. The issue there is, there's a couple of issues there. One is the striping wasn't very, currently isn't optimally laid out. So we've re-dimensioned that to maximize the outbound left and right turn lanes, to get a little bit more length there, as much as possible. We've extended the centerline stripe to the four way intersection to better define that because right now what happens is that inbound traffic tends to wander to the left and crowd the outbound cars so they can't find their way to the two outbound lanes. So we've better defined that, with the space that's there. It's the best that we could do with it. It's a little bit better. I think the centerline stripe is going to help a lot, and we get about one more car length in each of the turn lanes out. So it helps a bit. The next issue we discussed was not really related to the Texas Roadhouse project itself, but another concern on the site related to the post office driveway, and at the meeting we hadn't really talked all the way through it. I believe there were some, the Board had acknowledged some concerns around the post office driveway. I went and met with Laura and Staff after the meeting. We determined that the issue really is there were four spaces, this is the post office right here. There were these four spaces right here that a car coming in would just oppose those spaces. So these cars would back out into that entry driveway. So we're actually proposing this as part of the T.J. Maxx project, which is also on the agenda tonight, but we simply propose to eliminate these four spaces and stripe them, and if you switch to the next slide, hard to read, but we did review the parking calculations for the entire Plaza, and concluded them here in the lower right, that we still have a three parking space surplus from that. So you can follow the math. It's all very scientific, and it does follow the Ordinance in terms of number of spaces per square foot of use. On the next slide, please, Laura. The next comment was there's a guard rail right now, this is the former Monroe building, and there's a guiderail right here as you come in off of Quaker Road, and the question was what happens to that guard rail. We have identified it on the demolition plan that it's to be removed, and then on the next page, we show a grading plan, and if you would flip one more, please, Laura, it's just a blow up of this area that shows these contours right here are where the guard rail is, as it exists right here, and this just shows how we're grading that out to eliminate two levels, and we're making that all one slope across there. On the next slide please, the next issue related to signage and we had proposed a freestanding sign, and a wall sign on the front of the building, and a smaller wall sign on the Quaker Road side of the building. There were some concerns about that. I went back to my client and to Texas Roadhouse. They felt that the wall sign on the front of the building, since it's really part of the architecture of the building, was incredibly important to them, and the discussion I had with them was that then they better be very willing to make a concession elsewhere. So they've agreed to eliminate the freestanding sign. So we've deleted that from the Site Plan, and if you flip to the next slide, this is just the Site Plan where the sign used to be shown, that it's gone, and then on the next slide we show what we previously came in with. So we have, on the front face of the building, the large wall sign, and then on the Quaker Road face of the building a smaller wall sign. The monument sign is out here, and then on the next slide is what it looks like now, with just the two wall signs, and if we flip one more please, Laura, we can look at what the existing freestanding signage is out there, just a recap. There's a larger freestanding sign at the main driveway, a smaller one at the secondary driveway, and it looks kind of odd from Route 9 because there's two signs, one right after the other, but it became clear to me, after a little while, that really this sign is meant to be seen from Quaker Road coming from this direction. You actually can see that sign from back in here. So it does serve a purposes. We're not going to put a, the Texas Roadhouse will not have a panel on either of these signs. They'll remain as is until we get to the next project I have on the agenda tonight. So, next slide, please, Laura, and then these are the two wall signs that are proposed. The larger sign is 128 and a half square feet, which is considerably larger than the Code allows. Because of the distance to the roadway, we would only be allowed 30 square feet. Again, the second sign, this sign here, is over the Quaker Road door. It's the only sign that'll be visible from Quaker Road. It's only 11 something square feet. So it's a relatively small sign over the doorway. Really just marks the entrance of the building so that people can find the door from the parking lot. We're really relying on this sign, and if you flip to the next page, please, Laura, you can see how the sign fits in to the architecture of the building, and it really belongs in that spot on the roof, and that is the reason why it is so important to the Texas Roadhouse to not compromise that sign because it changes the whole fagade of the building if the sign gets smaller. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MS. WHITE-Do you know what percentage of that sign is internally lit? MR. STELLATO-The sign is lit. It's, and I'm not a sign guy, but it's lit with like a, it's not neon, it's LED, but the letters are perimeter lit, and the logo is perimeter lit, and then there are some lights on the building that actually light the building itself. MS. WHITE-But it's really only just the outside of the letters and then the? MR. STELLATO-Yes. MS. WHITE-Okay. That's what I thought. MR. STELLATO-There's one in Colonie on Wolfe Road if you ever wanted to see it. It looks just like that. That one is from somewhere out in the mid-west. They're basically all the same. It's, I think, pretty attractive in the evening. Those are the changes. We could go back and re- visit any of the plans that we presented in January if you like, landscaping, utilities, but none of that has changed, and we're here tonight. MR. TRAVER-Well, thank you for removing the freestanding sign. I think it was mainly you and I that had that discussion. That's good. I'm glad. It's a nice change. I'm glad you were able to get your clients to accommodate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MRS. MOORE-1 do have one question. In reference to that intersection that's where the post office, or before the post office. You had mentioned that this area, that that would be drawn, is that still case? MR. STELLATO-It is. We haven't changed it. It was like that on the previous plan. There is a plan in the, if you flip to the January presentation, there's a plan in there that shows that we are widening this radius. We're taking that curb out and we're making that radius wider so that the trucks can get through there, and on the final set of plans that we submitted, that is included. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DEEB-In our previous discussions, the Quaker Road exit, did we discuss anything about trying to divert traffic, just make sure traffic went right? MR. STELLATO-It's signed that way right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it's signed that way. Every once in a while you'll see somebody actually try to take a left hand turn coming down. Most of the, I mean, I tried to exit that, I think it was Friday, last Friday, I had a hard time turning right. MR. DEEB-Just getting right. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if you take the first right and take the right hand lane to go up back onto Route 9, it's easy, but just to even get onto Quaker Road. MR. STELLATO-It's the time of day. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was. It was peak hour, you know, it was five o'clock on a Friday. MR. STELLATO-Yes, we talked about putting the pork chop in there to make that harder to do. I don't think the Fire Marshal was very keen on that idea. MR. HUNSINGER-Well that was going to be my question on the southern Route 9 egress, if by taking out the pork chop from that if that would encourage people to try to make a left hand turn. MR. STELLATO-It's difficult to make a left hand turn there any time of the day. It's close enough to the main driveway, which is clearly signaled, that a sane person would opt to drive across the parking lot and use the light. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, you're always going to get that occasional car. I mean, they do it at Lowe's there and Applebee's where you do have the pork chop in there, and you see them all the time going out that way to cut the two lights. MR. STELLATO-Yes, and I think that the curbing that's there now doesn't, it doesn't make it impossible. So it's possible now. You're right. Without the curbing, there's less restriction, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) and, you know, it's easier to drive over paint than it is curbing. So it makes it a little bit easier to do, but that was the tradeoff. You remember our opinion on it was we would have done it either way. The Fire Marshal felt pretty strongly that that curbing was an impediment to getting his ladder truck in there, and he really wanted that curbing gone. So it is what it is. MR. MAGOWAN-So we can get the ladder truck in there. We're just going to have more ambulances and tow trucks there. It's a compromise. MR. STELLATO-It's a compromise, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I appreciate that you took into consideration some of our concerns on this design. The main entrance, you mentioned, you know, the striping and the result is the same, but what I tend to see more is when people are exiting the Plaza they seem to think they can move all the way over to the right hand lane, you know, you have near head-on collisions with cars coming in. MR. STELLATO-You mean people coming in crowd the center line. MR. HUNSINGER-No, people going out drive into the incoming lane. MR. STELLATO-To get around, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STELLATO-And there's not a lot you can do about that either. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think striping as you've proposed I think will help a lot. Because right now it's only striped for a few feet. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes. I mean, if anything's there, nobody's seeing it. MR. STELLATO-Currently it's not striped all the way down. It's only striped about a third of the way through the intersection. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, there's always an option to put up those little flapper things in the middle there where you're striping it, just to get people accustomed to breaking some old habits I would imagine. MR. STELLATO-Yes. I think as a temporary measure that's something that could be considered. It gets tough in the wintertime. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, and then in the wintertime they, you know, chances are they wouldn't be up long anyway. One car would take them right out anyway. MR. STELLATO-Yes, but, no, you did a great job of re-designing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we get a response back from Chazen? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I had the letter from January 14tH MRS. MOORE-There's a signoff letter. MR. HUNSINGER-It wasn't just me. I don't think we got something. MRS. MOORE-We did get it. If you want to go through. MR. HUNSINGER-Because there was quite an extensive list from Chazen in January. MRS. MOORE-It'll take me a minute to find it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions, comments on the subdivision? Do we need to do separate public hearings for the subdivision and the site plan? MRS. MOORE-You can do them all together. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments on the site plan? MR. MAGOWAN-No. Are we just reviewing SEAR? MR. HUNSINGER-We're looking to see if we had newer comments from Chazen. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, but, I mean, are we? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we haven't done that yet. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-What's the Board's feeling about the sign on the building and the lighting on the building? You know one of the concerns that was mentioned is when you're coming down Aviation Road, it's really going to dominate the intersection. MR. TRAVER-Well, my impression, from looking at the sample, is that it's not going to be very intense. It's a lot of square feet, but not, quite honestly, the Dollar General, I think, is going to be much, much more a sharp illumination. This is very subdued. It's a lot of square footage, but it's. MR. MAGOWAN-It follows the contour of the building and the roof peak. It fits in better. MR. TRAVER-Yes, it's more of an accent, to me, than a sign. MS. WHITE-The majority of it is externally lit. It's downward lighting. It's not illuminated. MR. TRAVER-Yes, like I said, it's certainly different, to me, than, you know, conventional internally illuminated colored signs are. My concern was with the freestanding sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. TRAVER-The elimination of that I think accommodated the other thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there's no other questions from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? We have at least one gentleman. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear comments and concerns from interested parties. We do ask that you state your name for the record, and to speak clearly into the microphone. The meeting is taped. The tape is posted to the Town's website and the tape is also used to transcribe the minutes. Good evening. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-Hi. My name is Richard Spoerl. I live at 21 Old Aviation Road. I was here earlier, I think in January, for that meeting, voicing concerns on the Quaker Road entrance. There are quite a few near misses and some accidents from that from people turning left. Like you say, an insane person is the only one that wants to really try that. Further concern is coming down Aviation Road across Route 9, turning left into there is going, you're going into the left hand turn lane onto Glen Street going south, you see that a lot. So if you're in the left hand lane coming down past the Mall, you go to turn in there, there is no turn lane into that entrance to that area. So people tend to drift over into that turn lane, and there's a couple of near misses there, and I think that there's got to be something done there to keep that from happening. Right now there's not a lot of traffic in there. The traffic that I see through the Wolfe Road Texas Roadhouse is mainly late afternoon and night time. It's going to be dark. It's not well lit there. There's no lights or anything to tell people that there's exiting traffic. It's not a marked exit from that Plaza. I just think that we need to take into consideration some safety as far as that end. Other than that, everything else is fine, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Any written comments, Laura? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-You're still looking for the signoff letter. MRS. MOORE-No, it's here now. It was dated. MR. HUNSINGER-Friday? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-It was dated the 9th. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And it's, based on our review, all technical comments offered have been addressed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there's no other comments from the public, we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER- We have not conducted SEAR. Are there any concerns that the Board has before we address the SEAR? This is a Long Form. Are there any specific concerns that any Board members have on SEAR? MR. TRAVER-None from me. MR. HUNSINGER-Hearing none, if you want to do a resolution. RESOLUTION RE: SEAR FOR SUB # 1-2015 & SP #3-2015 WESLEY PADGETT/RCG The applicant proposes subdivision of a 22.87 acre parcel into two commercial lots of 2.16 & 20.71 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval & Applicant proposes development of a 7,319 sq. ft. Texas Road House restaurant with associated site work, storm water, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9 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 Long EAF has been completed by the applicant; Part 2 of the Long 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 / DISAPPROVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR SUBDIVISION 1- 2015 & SITE PLAN 3-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft resolution provided by staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of March 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-The next resolution would be the Preliminary Stage subdivision. Any discussion before we consider the resolution? Go ahead. RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY STG. SUB # 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT/RCG A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 22.87 acre parcel into two commercial lots of 2.16 & 20.71 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1-20-2015 and tabled to 3-17-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 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; The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. Waivers granted: construction details, landscape plan, clearing plan, grading & erosion plan. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-So next would be resolution to consider Final Stage subdivision. Is there any discussion, anything we haven't covered yet? RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL STG. SUB # 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT/RCG A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 22.87 acre parcel into two commercial lots of 2.16 & 20.71 acres. Pursuant to Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance subdivision of land shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. A public hearing was scheduled and held on 1-20-2015 and tabled to 3-17-2015; This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record; 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; SEAR Negative Declaration was approved on 1-20-2015; MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) SITE PLAN NO. 3-2015 SEAR TYPE UNLISTED WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, LLC AGENT(S) A. STELLATO, CHA CONSULTING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 7,319 SQ. FT. TEXAS ROADHOUSE RESTAURANT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK, STORMWATER, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOOD SERVICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 1-15, SV 4-15 WARREN CO. REFERRAL JANUARY 2015 LOT SIZE 2.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-9, 179-3-040 MR. HUNSINGER-So it might feel like you're three quarters of the way there, but you're really only halfway there. Anything on the Site Plan that we need to talk about? MR. DEEB-The sign, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. DEEB-Is it a compliant? MR. HUNSINGER-It needs a variance. MR. DEEB-It needs a variance. So they'd have to go for the variance. MR. HUNSINGER-They'll have to go to the Zoning Board. MR. STELLATO-Tomorrow. MR. DEEB-Tomorrow. Okay. That's all. MR. HUNSINGER-So it is possible that the Zoning Board could say no. MR. DEEB-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-It's kind of interesting, and I remember going through the discussion on Main Street. We don't make a recommendation on signs outside of the Main Street. MR. MAGOWAN-1 guess the only concern I really have is what Mr. Spoerl brought up, is just signing that south entrance as a, you know, right hand turn only, to help deter the. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don't think there's a sign there now. MR. STELLATO-I thought there was, but maybe it got knocked down or removed. MR. DEEB-Well, that's why I asked. I thought you said, yes, there was. MR. HUNSINGER-1 think I was thinking of the Quaker Road. MR. DEEB-It is still there? MR. HUNSINGER-There is one on Quaker. MR. DEEB-There is one? That's what I'm talking about is Quaker. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You're pointing to the one on Route 9, right? MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I know there's one on Quaker. I would just make sure that those signs are, you know, maintained and always visible, so a plow doesn't knock them down and they're forgotten. Like I said, I would say the majority of the people will, you know, honor the sign, but there are the few that, you know, that feel that laws are there to be broken. MR. STELLATO-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-And another thing, too, what is the height of that slope down where you're removing that guard rail? I kind of saw it, I saw the, you know, the different height numbers. I mean, what kind of slope are we going to be talking? MR. STELLATO-Laura, can you back up, please, through the, or before, sorry, before. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. TRAVER-It's not significant, as I recall. MR. STELLATO-We've actually added, it's a little bit hard to read. The slopes coming in, they get up to about seven and a half percent as you make the turn, which is, you know, it's a relatively significant slope. We like to stay under eight percent on a roadway. In the parking areas we flatten out to about five percent. We're really, in a parking lot like this, our goal would be to get to three or four percent as we get closer to the building. So as you're coming up from the street to make up that grade, you're parking on a little bit steeper of a slope, and you've got, you know, you've got about, that seven percent slope is, you'll feel it. Guidelines for say a residential driveway would be 10%. So not as steep as the steepest driveway, but there's going to be a little bit of a grade. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm just concerned more for, you know, winter and that and, you know, people bombing in off of Quaker Road, you know, and going behind or turning in. MR. STELLATO-I can tell you that the steepest part of it won't be steeper than the steepest part of it now, the steepest drive part of it now. The slope that you're talking about is if you see these three contour lines right there, each one of those is a foot. So this is the bottom level, and then it goes up, one, two, three feet. So there's about three and a half to four feet of difference between there and there now where that guard rail is, and we're taking that out, but you can also find, you know, between, say, from here and here, that slope is, that existing slope is about six percent. We're flattening out to about five and then coming around the corner, the existing slope gets closer to seven, seven and a half percent. There's not much we can do with it. It's there. It's what's there now, because we do have to, we have to position the building vertically so that it works with the Hobby Lobby next door because we have to tie driveways in there and we have to tie in to the driveway that comes from Quaker Road. MR. MAGOWAN-That's fine if there's three feet, but for some reason I always thought it was larger, because I know right past the guard rail it dips down and goes in behind the building. MR. STELLATO-As you get further into the site it does go down, yes. MR. MAGOWAN-No, that's fine. I mean, you're out behind Hobby Lobby. If you're comfortable with that pitch, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, concerns? So are there any conditions that we need to consider? MR. DEEB-There's not going to be a sign on the Route 9 southern entrance and exit? There's a right in turn only? MR. MAGOWAN-You mean turning signs? MR. DEEB-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-No, I would put a condition in to make sure that the turning signs are there and they're maintained. MR. DEEB-On the southern Route 9 exit. MR. MAGOWAN-On the southern Route 9, and to make sure that Quaker Road space there. MR. DEEB-Okay. I just wasn't sure. MR. MAGOWAN-That would be my suggestion. MR. STELLATO-So just to clarify, we're going to verify the existence, and if they don't exist, we're going to add right turn only signs facing the Plaza as you exit both of those drives, make sure they're signed for right turn only. MR. DEEB-Yes, I'd be more comfortable with that. MR. STELLATO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-You have right turn only signs on your site detail sheet, but it's hard to tell where they correspond to the actual site plan. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. STELLATO-I thought we did have them. I thought we did call them out on the southern driveway, but if they're not there and you make it a condition of the approval, they'll be there. MR. DEEB-Okay. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay then I want those little flip up grates that come up out of the ground and pops your tires if you try to go. They're going to wish Monroe was back. MR. HUNSINGER-It doesn't show it on the Quaker Road, but it does show it on Route 9. MR. STELLATO-I thought they were on the Quaker Road, at least when we did the survey, when we did the site walk through for signage they were there, but they may be gone. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I'm talking about the plan. It's on the plan. MR. STELLATO-For the Route 9 drive but not the Quaker Road drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-How about taking our created and just maintained, or created and maintained, since we don't see one on the Quaker Road. I said both entrances, Quaker and Route 9. MR. STELLATO-We don't have a problem adding it to Quaker. MR. MAGOWAN-1 think there was one there, but I mean, I'm more worried about it being maintained. MR. STELLATO-Yes, I think that makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. You don't show it on your plan because it's off your site. MR. STELLATO-It's in the right of way. MR. HUNSINGER-It's in the right of way. MR. STELLATO-We could even, it might make more sense, actually, to bring those signs, even if they exist on the Quaker Road driveway down towards the road, to add a second set up by the parking lot, so people driving by aren't going to take that driveway if they want to turn left. It might deter them, you know, once they head down that driveway they realize, I wanted to turn left, they're not going to back up the driveway. MR. DEEB-That's a good idea. I like that idea. MR. STELLATO-So we can definitely add them. So we would add them. MR. MAGOWAN-To pre-warn, to deter. MR. STELLATO-So we'd add them back in here. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, that's good. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? Anything from Staff Notes, Laura that you can see? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-1 guess we're ready. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP #3-2015 WESLEY PADGETT/RCG VENTURES An application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for Site Plan approval for development of a 7,319 sq. ft. Texas Road House restaurant with associated site work, storm water, lighting and landscaping. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Food Service shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; received a recommendation of No County Impact dated January 2015; 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on 1-20-2015 and continued the public hearing to 3-17-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 3-17-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 179-9-080 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2015 WESLEY PADGETT FOR RCG VENTURES, LLC, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. If required, the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town: a) The project NOI (Notice of Intent) for coverage under the current "NYSDEC SPDES General Permit from Construction Activity" prior to the start of any site work. b) The project NOT (Notice of Termination) upon completion of the project; 2. The applicant must maintain on their project site, for review by staff: a) The approved final plans 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; b) The project NOI and proof of coverage under the current NYSDEC SPDES General Permit, or an individual SPDES permit issued for the project. 3. Right turn only signs created and/or maintained at both entrances at Quaker and Route 9 with a second set installed to deter cars before they enter the Quaker Road driveway from the site. 4. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Next item on the agenda under Old Business is Site Plan 5-2015. SITE PLAN NO. 5-2015 SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2007 MOD. SEAR TYPE UNLISTED LELAND JAROSZ OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 61 TWIN CHANNELS ROAD APPLICANT HAS FILLED AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 700 CUBIC YARDS TO MAKE AREA MORE LEVEL. IN ADDITION APPLICANT WANTS TO FILL APPROXIMATELY 700 ADDITIONAL CUBIC YARDS. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION FOR REMOVAL OF TREES THAT WERE TO REMAIN. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-6-060 & CHAPTER A-183 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FILLING MORE THAN SIX (6) FEET AND ANY MODIFICATION TO A SUBDIVISION SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE BP 13-354, AV 35-07, SB 10-07 APA, CEA OTHER NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 1.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-18.1 SECTION 179-6-060 LELAND JAROSZ, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, whenever you're ready. MRS. MOORE-The applicant has provided additional information for the Board to review. The applicant was tabled at the previous meeting requesting the applicant develop a landscaping plan that is acceptable to the neighbor. The applicant provided a landscape plan with two options prepared by Girard Landscaping. The options included four evergreen trees at 6-7 ft. height or 4 eastern redbud trees at 1.5-2 in. caliper with planting to occur along the stairway 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) area. The neighbor met with staff to review the plans and indicated the 4 eastern redbud trees would be acceptable. The neighbor did request that when proposed planting that she be available for siting when they are installed, and I did explain to her that Bruce Frank, who's our Code Compliance Officer, would also be on site for siting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. JAROSZ-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record. MR. JAROSZ-Leland Jarosz, and I am the owner of 61 Twin Channels Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. JAROSZ-No. I did get the landscape plan, and Ms. Austin spoke with, this plan was given to her and she spoke with Laura and agreed to the redbud, Eastern Redbud trees. They will be planted along the stairs. I'm going to plant the grass area from the garage, 160 feet to below the stairs 20 feet, and then the trees will be planted 10 to 15 feet from, and whether she wants them all in a row or she wants them staggered, it's up to Ms. Austin. I guess Bruce Frank will be there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I'm glad you could work it out. MR. MAGOWAN-So you're telling me you're all one big happy family up there now? MR. JAROSZ-1 hope so. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. MR. DEEB-Do you have a date yet set for this to be done? MR. JAROSZ-It's going to be done by, before summer, as soon as I can start planting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from the Board? I think the applicant accomplished what we had requested of him. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wishes to address the Board on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Laura, are there any written comments? MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-This is an Unlisted SEAR type. MRS. MOORE-1 couldn't come up with a Type II that clearly identified that it was a Type 11. So it's Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-Better to be safe than sorry. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we do need to consider a SEAR resolution. Are there any concerns from the Board related to SEAR that we didn't discuss in Site Plan Review? MR. TRAVER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-If not, if you want to put forth a motion. RESOLUTION RE: SEAR FOR SP #5-2015 & SUB # 10-2007 MOD. LELAND JAROSZ The applicant proposes Applicant has filled an area of approximately 700 cubic yards to make area more level. In addition applicant wants to fill approximately 700 additional cubic yards. Subdivision modification for removal of trees that were to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6- 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) 060 & Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance filling more than six (6) feet and any modification to a subdivision 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 NO. 5-2015 & MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2007 LELAND JAROSZ, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-And unless there's any discussion, well, we do have a number of waivers requested. We'll entertain a motion for Site Plan. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 5-2015 & SUB MOD. 10-2007 LELAND JAROSZ An application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for Site Plan approval for Applicant has filled an area of approximately 700 cubic yards to make area more level. In addition applicant wants to fill approximately 700 additional cubic yards. Subdivision modification for removal of trees that were to remain. Pursuant to Chapter 179-6-060 & Chapter A-183 of the Zoning Ordinance filling more than six (6) feet and any modification to a subdivision shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on 1-27-2015 and continued the public hearing to 3-17-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 3-17-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 179-9-080 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval approved as further discussed below MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2015 & SUBDIVISION 10-2007 MODIFICATION, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by David Deeb: Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. Waivers granted: lighting, traffic flow, new construction or alterations, floor plans, construction disposal. 2. Also, the four eastern red bud trees to be planted as per the landscaping plan. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) 3. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 would add to your motion the condition of the red buds being planted, as part of the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-The four eastern red bud trees. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. And Number Three, the four eastern red bud trees to be planted along the lands of Ms. Austin. MR. JAROSZ-No, they're going to be planted on my land, adjoining hers. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, along the property line. MRS. MOORE-As per the landscape plan. MR. MAGOWAN-As per the plan. Yes, thank you. AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. MR. JAROSZ-Thank you. I have one question, in relation to the additional 700 yards of fill. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that is why you were here. MR. JAROSZ-All right. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-2015 SEAR UNLISTED SANDRO MEI-RCG VENTURES & RCG- QUEENSBURY, LLC'S AGENT(S) A. STELLATO, CHA CONSULTING OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI LOCATION 820 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION OF A 22,123 SQ. FT. RETAIL SPACE, AND NEW 617 SQ. FT. FAQADE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 179-9 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHOPPING PLAZA-RETAIL IN A CI ZONE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE MANY WARREN CO. REFERRAL MARCH 2015 LOT SIZE 20.71 TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-47 SECTION 179-9 TONY STELLATO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-The applicant proposes a renovation of a 22,123 square foot retail space of the Northway Plaza and to install a new 617 square foot fagade. The fagade area changes from 180 square feet currently to 617 square feet. The new fagade also includes new column fixtures that extend along the current fagade area. The new columns also have down cast light fixtures. The applicant has indicated that the new fagade would be consistent with the color scheme of the Hobby Lobby. Those are the only items I covered. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. STELLATO-Good evening. Tony Stellato again with CHA. I have a brief presentation on this, shorter than the other one. First slide, the next slide is just an aerial view of the Plaza, which I think you're familiar with. This is the area of the Plaza that we're talking about, and if you could just flip to the next one please. This is just the cartoon drawing that shows the Home Depot. This is the Texas Roadhouse we just approved. Hobby Lobby's here, and this is T.J. Maxx in the space currently occupied by Peter Harris clothes, 22,000 and change square feet. On the next page we show how the floor plan fills in. This is the T.J. Maxx. This is the rear of the Plaza. The post office is here. This is McKesson, and there's a common hallway that goes back to this common area, and the loading dock, existing loading dock back in this area. They're proposing to add a trash compactor in this location on a 10 by 40 pad to replace some 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) of the open dumpsters that are there right now, in an area that there are currently dumpsters on the site. MR. FERONE-Does T.J. Maxx take over the same footprint that the Peter Harris is in, or are they increasing another store length? MR. STELLATO-They're staying within the same footprint, but there was some wasted space in that footprint. There's Peter Harris and then Peter Harris Plus, and then there was some dead space in there that is getting incorporated, and there's actually still some dead space. This office right here, it shows up on this plan as management offices. I believe maybe RCG has some desks in there. I don't think they have people there, but if you look at the tenant roster, that space I think shows up as available and I think it's really space that's available for McKesson to expand into if they ever wanted. So, the T.J. Maxx space, to answer your question, is a little bit larger than the two Peter Harris', but not a lot, and the Tropical Tan, which is the next in that space up there stays. If we go to the next slide, truck turning, and actually I did not do this plan. This was done by the surveyor, but I reviewed it. Truck turning movements are unchanged from Peter Harris Clothes, and we show the path in from Quaker Road, around the back into the existing truck well and out past the post office down the main driveway, and it's the same truck movements that we verified with Texas Roadhouse. We know that they work, especially with the addition of the curbing there that Texas Roadhouse is doing. MR. HUNSINGER-And most interesting one is when the trucks back up to Panera. I don't know if you've ever witnessed that. MR. STELLATO-I have not seen that. MR. HUNSINGER-That is quite interesting. MR. MAGOWAN-It's pretty tight. MS. WHITE-And there's cars on one side. MR. HUNSINGER-There's cars. Yes, it causes quite a commotion. So after that, anything. MR. STELLATO-Anything is easy. Right. Now if we could go to the next slide, please. So this shows, on the bottom is a photograph of what that part of the building looks like today with the Peter Harris Clothes on the high part of the fagade and also to the right of it is Peter Harris Plus, Tropical Tan, although Tropical Tan has a sign. Their sign is on the main part of the building. That's going to stay, but their entrance is actually over beyond here. T.J. Maxx proposes to take this fagade and expand it out and up. We're increasing the height by four feet, six inches. So from 25 feet 6 inches to 30 feet high. Code allows 40 feet in this zone, Commercial Intensive, and you're adding a total of 437 square feet to the canopy. MR. FERONE-Does that match up with what Hobby Lobby has? I'm trying to think. MR. HUNSINGER-That was my question, too, is it any taller? MR. STELLATO-In height? I don't know what the height of Hobby Lobby is. I don't have that number. I didn't do that approval. Did they go up as well? Yes, I mean, we're going up four and a half feet. I don't know for sure if it's identical. MR. HUNSINGER-It's still within Code. MR. STELLATO-If we flip to the next slide, please. It shows the elevation of T.J. Maxx. The sign that we show there is not intended for approval yet. T.J. Maxx will come in with their own sign package. That sign, if you measure the distance from the face of the building to the street, is 470 feet. So it's over the 200 feet. So you get the maximum area. The Code allows a 200 square foot sign. What we show there is probably about 225, and I just think it's because they didn't know the Code. The architect drew the sign and didn't know the Code. So I'm pretty sure that they're going to come in with a compliant sign. If they came in with that sign, it would exceed the Code by 25 square feet. On the next slide, those are the two existing freestanding signs again. Peter Harris has a, there's a panel on the main sign, and that panel will simple be replaced with a T.J. Maxx panel. So they'll have, you know, they'll have a sign on the freestanding sign. They'll have a sign on the wall, and again, we are not prepared to ask for a sign package approval yet because they just haven't gotten to that point yet. On the next slide we show, there's, on the front columns of the building there's existing lights that are going to moved, sconce lights. We're going to replace four existing lights with four new lights. These are the fixtures that we're proposing. They're LED fixtures, 53 watts a piece. They're really just pedestrian scale lighting. They're mounted 11 feet off the ground. They light the sidewalk in 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) front of the building. Then the next page, this is the same slide we showed you for Texas Roadhouse. This project actually includes this, because the post office is really adjacent to the T.J. Maxx space we thought it was appropriate to include this project. So on the next page we show you, again, the same parking summary calculation that we showed you for Texas Roadhouse, and then that's it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Questions, comments from the Board? I think we probably already asked them mostly. MR. FERONE-1 didn't want to bring it up again with the earlier project because we kind of did that the last time, but in a short period of time you have a commercial area where you have Hobby Lobby. We just approved a restaurant. Now you've got a fairly popular store going in. Are there any concerns with the traffic flow in there and the amount of cars that are going to be on the property? MR. STELLATO-Well, there's two answers to that question. The engineering answer is the retail center is, you know, contemplates a busy retail center and at one time it was, you know, thriving, and it's been somewhat, you know, in decline over the past few years. The owner, RCG Ventures, bought the property with the intent of improving it, making it vibrant and viable again and they're doing that. So with that perhaps comes an increase in traffic over what the Plaza has seen in the past several years, but certainly not in excess of what it was envisioned to do, what it was designed to do originally. So if we're all successful here, yes, we'll see more people coming here, more people shopping here. Better anchors bring more customers, bring a more active center. MR. FERONE-Are there any guidelines that have to be followed in regards to egress in an emergency and that's not just with this Plaza. I mean, even the Mall, you've got two ways in and out, but if everybody had to get out at one time. MRS. MOORE-The Fire Marshal reviews it. MR. FERONE-Okay. So that would be part of his review. MRS. MOORE-1 believe it would be. MR. FERONE-Okay. MR. STELLATO-I think we got a no comment comment letter back from the Fire Marshal. I think he did comment and say he had no issues. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, that could also go back, you know, George, to the Mall, you know. MR. FERONE-That's what I was saying. MR. MAGOWAN-1 mean, the Mall's the same thing. If there's an emergency, egress. They're always able to run the other way and go into the cemetery. I'm sure people would be happy to see them over there. MR. TRAVER-Well, I think in a genuine emergency, like at the Mall, there probably would be a police officer at the, where the light is, directing people exiting out. MR. HUNSINGER-You have the color fagade in the package. I didn't see anywhere where you specified the colors. You said the colors will match. MR. STELLATO-The same colors, the same building colors as Hobby Lobby. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STELLATO-The only difference was the red. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and that's just in the sign. MR. STELLATO-Right. The sign, and there's a little bit of accent on the building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you're right. MR. FERONE-And you mentioned the size of the sign might or might not change. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. STELLATO-I would have preferred to come to you with a sign package tonight. T.J. Maxx is just not ready with it, and they prefer to do it themselves. So we've advised them what the Code says. The sign that their architect drew is just, if you scale it, you know, it's a little bit bigger than the Code allows. It seems to me like it could be made compliant without much effort at all, and my guess is is that's what they'll come in with, and if they don't, we can have that discussion at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments or concerns from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to address the Board? Any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There were no written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Let the record show no comments were received. This is an Unlisted action. Are there any specific concerns in the site plan that the Board has not already identified? If not, Mr. Secretary. MR. MAGOWAN-Sure. RESOLUTION APPROVING A SEAR NEG DEC FOR SP # 13-2015 SANDRO MEI-RCG The applicant proposes Applicant proposes renovation of a 22,123 sq. ft. retail space, and new 617 sq. ft. fagade. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Shopping Plaza-Retail in a Cl zone 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 NO. 13-2015 SANDRO MEI-RCG VENTURES & RCG-QUEENSBURY, LLC'S, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft resolution provided by Staff. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Deeb, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-And would anyone like to put forward a resolution for the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-Maybe add, it may be redundant, but maybe add a note in there that signs to be Code compliant, since they're not included in the, I mean, they're represented in the application, but just to make sure we're not granting approval. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STELLATO-Could I ask a question on that? If they came in with a larger sign, would that invalidate the Site Plan approval? Could we word that such that, not that you're conditioning the Site Plan approval on the, you know, just make a note that if the sign doesn't comply, they have to come in for a variance? MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you're saying. MR. DEEB-If it's not compliant it has to go for a variance. MR. TRAVER-Well, that's what saying it has to be Code compliant does. MR. STELLATO-My concern is that that could be interpreted to mean that your approval of the Site Plan is conditioned on if and only if the sign complies. MR. DEEB-Yes, that makes sense. I think it should be re-worded to the point where if it's not Code compliant, then a variance will be needed. MR. STELLATO-Yes. Does that make sense? MR. DEEB-To me it does. MR. TRAVER-So if the design comes back that it's not compliant, what are you proposing? MR. STELLATO-For instance, if they come in with a sign and they want to try to get a variance for a 210 square foot sign, my concern is I would want that to be interpreted as they have to come back and get their Site Plan re-approved because the condition was that, Site Plan approval is conditioned upon them complying with the Sign Ordinance. MR. DEEB-Well, do we need to put that wording in the draft? MR. TRAVER-1 guess I would ask what Laura thinks. I mean, they may come back with a compliant sign, in which case they don't have to come back at all. MR. STELLATO-Right. MR. TRAVER-But if they come back with a, if they want to apply a sign that's not Code compliant, so therefore it's not part of the plan, they would just need a. MRS. MOORE-They would follow, they would go through the Sign Variance process. MR. TRAVER-Yes. So, but that wouldn't negate, putting in the resolution that the sign has to be Code compliant may be redundant because that's the default position of the Town anyway. Correct? But it wouldn't negate the entire Site Plan if they just needed a Sign Variance. Right? MRS. MOORE-Well, I guess I understand his point. It does lead itself to potentially being perceived that way I guess. MR. DEEB-So sign to be Code compliant unless a variance is requested. MR. TRAVER-Well, that says the same thing, but that's fine, if you want to use that language. MR. DEEB-But if we left it out? MRS. MOORE-You could not say anything. MR. DEEB-Just leave the wording out, and then if they came back with a Code compliant sign, that's fine. MR. TRAVER-The problem is their sign's included in the package. MR. FERONE-He's afraid that because there's a sign in the package that sign would be construed that we're approving it. MR. HUNSINGER-And the applicant has said that he believes that they're not compliant. So our fear is somebody could say, hey, it's right here in the plan. We scaled it off. It's the right size. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MRS. MOORE-You can also say the sign package is not a part of this Site Plan Review. MR. DEEB-That makes more sense, the sign package is not part of the Site Plan. MR. TRAVER-That's fine. That's what I thought I said the first time, but that's all right. MR. HUNSINGER-The sign package is not part of this review. MR. DEEB-Right. That's a separate issue. MR. TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. DEEB-That's why you're here. MR. MAGOWAN-Okay. Team, are you ready? MR. TRAVER-We're ready. MR. HUNSINGER-We're ready. MR. MAGOWAN-All right. RESOLUTION APPROVING SP # 13-2015 SANDRO MEI-RCG VENTURES An application has been made to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board for Site Plan approval for renovation of a 22,123 sq. ft. retail space, and new 617 sq. ft. fagade. Pursuant to Chapter 179-9 of the Zoning Ordinance Shopping Plaza-Retail in a Cl zone shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the site plan application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its recommendation; received a recommendation of No County Impact dated 3-13-2015; The Planning Board opened a public hearing on the Site Plan application on 3-17-2015 and continued the public hearing to 3-17-2015 when it was closed; The Planning Board has reviewed the potential environmental impacts of the project, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration - Determination of Non-Significance; The Planning Board has reviewed the application materials submitted by the applicant and all comments made at the public hearing and submitted in writing through and including 3-17-2015; The Planning Board determines that the application complies with the review considerations and standards set forth in Article 9 179-9-080 of the Zoning Ordinance for Site Plan approval; MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2015 SANDRO MEI-RCG VENTURES & RCG- QUEENSBURY, LLC'S, Introduced by Brad Magowan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Per the draft resolution provided by staff conditioned upon the following: 1. The sign package is not a part of this review. 2. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ferone, Mr. Magowan, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. STELLATO-Thank you. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good luck. MR. STELLATO-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-The million dollar question is, what happens to Peter Harris, or don't you know? MR. STELLATO-I don't know. I assume that they are still in business and perhaps are going to a different location. MR. TRAVER-Maybe they're going to look for a pending vacancy in the Mall. MR. DEEB-Could be. Do you know how many square feet the T.J. Maxx has in the Mall now? MR. STELLATO-I don't know that, no. MR. DEEB-I'm just curious. I think they're downsizing. MR. STELLATO-I'm not positive what the Mall square footage is. MR. FERONE-They might even be increasing size. MR. DEEB-Thank you. I was just curious. MR. STELLATO-Thank you all. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The last item on the agenda is a discussion item. DISCUSSION ITEM STEPHEN ETHIER SEAR TYPE OWNER(S) PERFORMING ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 87 MAIN STREET DISCUSSION ITEM: APPLICANT PROPOSES ONE (1) TWO-STORY BUILDING AND ONE (1) ONE-STORY BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. CROSS REFERENCE BP 14-499, BP 08-73, SP 2-03, SP 63-00 LOT SIZE 1.0 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-37 SECTION STEPHEN ETHIER, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Laura? MRS. MOORE-Okay. The applicant proposes two buildings. The building is located at 87 Main Street. The site is the old Victoria's ice cream shop. So that has recently been torn down. This would take the place of that. The potentially a total of one two story building and one one story building, and Mr. Ethier is here to discuss that. MR. ETHIER-Good evening. I'm Steve Ethier, Saratoga Springs resident, developer. I'm here about 87 Main Street. I'd like to get some direction, if I could, from the Board, on the site plan and a couple of ideas. I don't have the overhead. MR. HUNSINGER-That's fine. I mean, we all have copies of your thing. You can hold them, and the mic pulls right out. MR. ETHIER-This is, that's a two level building. Since then, I've got a couple of regional and national businesses that want to come in, and after doing some due diligence on the second floor. MR. DEEB-Could you grab the mic off the table, please. MR. ETHIER-I've been in touch with a couple of nationals, a couple of regionals that are interested in the site, and I know the Town's been looking to do the second floor there. With the cost of sprinklers and elevators, you really need to do three or four floors. So what we're looking to do is do a first floor, to attract the nationals and regionals, to get them into the spot, and to do possibly a second or third floor later if we can. We can do with some steel construction, and if the market is there, which has not been proven, we could go up not two floors but three floors. So that's where we're at there. So would you like to take a look at the one level drawings? MRS. MOORE-That's different than what you provided to them? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. DEEB-That's different than what we have? MR. ETHIER-Yes. That's a two story. The site plan's identical, but this would only be, we'd only be looking to do one story. MR. DEEB-On both buildings? MR. ETHIER-On both buildings. The site plan's identical. MR. TRAVER-Yes, the footprint. MR. ETHIER-Everything's identical, and I know the Town's looking to do that, and believe me, from a developer's standpoint, I'd love to put five floors there if the market's there. So I figure the practical approach to do is start with one level, you know, get somebody there, national or regional, and if the market is proven, I'll be back here for three floors. With the cost of the elevator and the cost of the sprinklers, just to do a second floor now for professional office space, there's a glut, right now, of professional office space. We have the same problem in Saratoga and Malta. First floor always goes in Saratoga, and it's all residential up above, but in Malta and different places, it's very tough to get professional office on that second floor, and to make the numbers work you really need that third floor, which you can do, and we would love to do it. MR. HUNSINGER-What if it were residential? MR. ETHIER-Three floors also, but it's just not proven at that corridor is it going to attract the residential side. It's all an unknown. It's kind of like I'm the first one in the chute here, but it's not a problem going two floors with the way we're going to construct it. It's just a matter of, if the market's there, we'd rather go up and start working our way back on the site. MR. HUNSINGER-I've got to say I was excited about the two story. MR. ETHIER-Yes, I know. MR. DEEB-I looked at that building and it was gorgeous. I said we'd love to have that right there. MR. ETHIER-Yes, I knew what the Town was looking to do, and the Code, he and I spoke and we're both on the same page. We started digging into the Code, and an elevator is, an elevator and a sprinkler is just, it makes it just cost, you know, it just doesn't work, but if, even if you had a tenant for just a second floor professional, but if the market's there, I would propose, you know, in Saratoga is good first floor for coffee shops and businesses and residential. It's great, and with another floor it would really work because then you could scale up with the numbers. I figure at least we could try this and then go up, you know, if that market's there, but it's a big risk to put that second floor on, especially when there's a lot of inventory in the market. MR. DEEB-Yes, we've been through that already. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We have our bruises. MR. DEEB-Yes, we have our bruises. The second building, are you proposing to just put that on hold also? MR. ETHIER-Yes. I'd like to, it's very difficult sometimes, you know, with the regional and nationals, because they want to know exactly what you have there. So at least I have an approval, move forward and, if the site's okay, and re-developing the way that is. MR. FERONE-So you want to get approved for the whole project, do t e building one first. MR. ETHIER-Right. MR. FERONE-And then if you have the business, then do the second. MR. ETHIER-Or maybe go two floors on the front one and then work back. I see a high end, even someone from Saratoga waiting to see a high end gourmet, I don't want to say deli, but definitely there's demand there for that site. The question is the residential part. Professional, everybody wants to be on first floor. I mean, a dentist, a doctor, you know, every business, first floor, you can accommodate anyone, but this professional spot on the second floor, I don't know. All the markets, you've got to give the space away. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. DEEB-But what about apartments? MR. ETHIER-Apartments have done well. Like I said, if this is the way, I don't want to keep on going back to Saratoga, I just know you guys maybe could reference that, they rent out quick. Residential rents out quick. MR. FERONE-1 mean, there's a business around the corner with 400 people in it. So, whatever you have going on here would probably get accessed by that. MR. ETHIER-There's another guy coming up to the area and he's thinking about going two floors. I was going to kind of maybe get this one going, see how he does, and go three floors. I would think with the Hospital. I would think it's there, but to take that risk, and then you're taking the risk to go three floors, but it'll work in an elevator with three floors. When you get your density, because you might even want to do that back building, bring it in a little bit and go up three floors. MR. FERONE-Again, based on the company, one of the positive's is you're so close to entrance and exit on the highway. Anybody's got to travel, it's perfect for them to come right off the highway. MR. ETHIER-I think it's there, and I'm almost in, but I'm just not ready to commit to that, I guess put my money there yet, but I think it's there, and the fabulous job attracting these developers. All the work that's been done there is superb. The density's great, and it's all there ready to go. It's just that, the unknown is the residential, you know, those two floors up above. MR. FERONE-If you build it will they come. MR. DEEB-Yes, we need a leader here. We need somebody to be a leader. MR. ETHIER-Well, the first, you know, we'll get this, I've got a lot of inquiries on that first floor. MR. HUNSINGER-So how do you finish off the roof so that it's ready for a second floor? MR. ETHIER-You could do it with steel trusses, steel trusses, and if it's in demand you just, what you do is just peel back the rubber membrane and go straight up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ETHIER-Everything just goes higher. When I build this I'll have room for an elevator shaft, and then sprinklers, elevator, everything is scaled down because you create more density, and if it's there, that second building, you might, what you might do is put that elevator between the two buildings. Two pads there, bring in that footprint a little bit, and you can go up three stories and accommodate, you know, what the Town wants to achieve, and I'm all for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Then you could get the economy to scale out of the elevator. MR. ETHIER-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ETHIER-That's right where the position I'm at. MR. HUNSINGER-How much does an elevator cost these days? MR. ETHIER-Just even two stops is $65, 70,000. There's only two people that do it, Otis and there's, you know, so they have the market, and the maintenance of it and sprinklers now, if you scale up, but it's probably $125,000 just between the two to put a second floor. With an abundance of professional space, it's almost suicidal. MR. FERONE-And it's a pneumatic one, right, it gets pushed up? MR. ETHIER-You know, they're nice for residential, but this would have to be handicap, 3500 pound capacity, and it's just, I price them all the time in Saratoga, and any time there's second floor you've got to back away from it because you need to scale. MR. DEEB-What do you have in Saratoga that you can give us a reference? MR. ETHIER-I just completed one, Washington Commons, which Saratoga Vision just bought, and that was that building, very close to it, and they bought the whole first floor. They were going to buy the whole first floor, but it was going to be condominiums, but they had kids coming 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) into the business, and the rental market's so strong there, they bought the whole building, because they were in an older plaza, and so this is a newer building, their own parking, and after depreciation and everything, it sold. In fact, it's very similar to that building proposed. MR. DEEB-That's a beautiful building. MR. ETHIER-Yes, it really went well, and the City it went well, and that's the market, too, if you could attract, you know, maybe a doctor's group that they see a first floor there they say, hey, we'll go up, and you get the elevator in, but you've got to at least, it makes it even more and more attractive in the market, at least you could get something there, and no developer's going to turn down more density and more. Everything's there. It's great. It really is. The utilities are there. All the National Grid work is done. It's a developer's dream. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other thoughts, comments from the Board? MR. FERONE-Well, I think it's a nice size lot. I think everything fits in there very neatly with the parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DEEB-It looks like a nice project, I just hope it can go. MR. ETHIER-There's no parking there, and I allowed enough to where, looking at the numbers you could bring a restaurant in there, and maybe, and that will accommodate the parking. It's all there. The flexibility's all there. The ground is beautiful, for storm drainage, re-developing. Half the parking lot's already in, and the utilities and, you know, it's there, and it's a superb spot. MR. HUNSINGER-So do you have any specific retail uses in mind right now? MR. ETHIER-I don't really want to mention them. There are a couple of regionals, a couple of nationals, from a wine store to a restaurant, to a couple of regional. MR. DEEB-So you've got some feelers out there. MR. ETHIER-I do, yes, because I do a lot of this. So, I have buildings in Saratoga. So I, you know, I'm trying to bring a doctor's group up here, too, to that location, too. So it's all, they're going, because now a lot of these doctors groups are, you know, going in bigger groups now. MR. DEEB-I think it would be an ideal location for a doctor's office. That spot right there. You've got Hudson Headwaters right up the road. You've got, I think it's an ideal spot. MR. ETHIER-So if I get even preliminary we have an approval for that first floor, you know it's eminent and we can start marketing it, and coming here, if I could get a doctor's group and they'll say, hey, this is great we need the space, an elevator would work there. MR. HUNSINGER-I love the design, though. MR. DEEB-I do, too. It's something I think that Queensbury wants. MR. HUNSINGER-So the Main Street plan, you know, the way it's written and the way it was changed, does not sort of anticipate coming in with a single story building with the ability to add on. So I guess the tradeoff is, you know, is an empty lot better or is a one story with the potential to go up better. MRS. MOORE-The flexibility in the Code now is that discussion occurs with you. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So that's the flexibility that's been added. So it turns into Site Plan, Special Use Permit, and it's truly the discussion that the developer has with the Board. So I think this is, you know, understanding that he has the potential to go for the second floor, and describing that as part of the plan, I think that's, you know, the intent is there. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. DEEB-I mean, I think if you start, I've got a feeling that second floor would come quick. It's just a feeling. MR. FERONE-And who knows, he might come back with a plan for a second floor. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-Well, like said, you start bringing, we've got the Dollar General coming in. You're looking at this, and then other people are going to be eyeing it, and then this is what we try and do is to get at least something in there to start opening up, you know, people's eyes. I love the design. MS. WHITE-Would we be able to say, you know, we'd rather see you go up first before the back building? I mean, I know you said that now. MR. ETHIER-Yes, I might be possibly asking you for that, to go up three floors. In fact, taking that building, it actually, I have a three story version of it. So I might be coming in not for two, for three, you know, three stories. MR. DEEB-How high can we go? MRS. MOORE-That's fine. It's up to three. MR. DEEB-Up to three floors. MR. ETHIER-It could really work, and, boy, if there is a demand for, you know, apartments and residential, I think that's what we could achieve. MR. DEEB-That I think there is a demand for. You've got that huge employer around the corner. People love to live close to work. MS. WHITE-They could walk to work. MR. FERONE-There are the townhouses on, what is it, Pine Street or whatever. MR. HUNSINGER-Right behind this. MR. FERONE-Yes. There are folks that live there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I'm not surprised. MR. ETHIER-Everybody's pointing that way with the residential. If it's there, it's there. I just don't know the market that well. MR. DEEB-Well, we've had discussion on office space. We've been over that pretty thoroughly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ETHIER-It's happening everywhere, I don't know. It's just changing the economics of, second floor professional space is just very hard. MR. DEEB-We've heard. MR. ETHIER-But if you guys, if you feel that's laid out with the site, I'm very confident on the engineering because we looked at the engineering with the soils. That site, and most of it's already built accommodating the ice cream, and all the infrastructure's there. It's ready to go. I don't think you could do anything more, and it's there, and if I could get this, if you feel comfortable with it, I'll get a little more detailed and I'll submit these drawings here. We discussed these first floors with the intent of, you know, going up, because I'd like to maximize what I can in the first footprint, before I even move myself back, you know, going back. MR. DEEB-Yes, it makes sense. MR. ETHIER-Yes, I'm willing to take a shot. If you guys want to join me, I'll put the money. I'll be the guinea pig, you know. MR. MAGOWAN-Have you talked to Bob Sears? MR. ETHIER-I have, yes. He says apartments and he says don't worry about it, but, you know, I'm the one with the skin in the game. They're all telling me that, and everybody says, hey, Steve, go ahead, and it's like where are you guys, well we though, you know what I mean. They all thought. MR. DEEB-You go ahead and spend it. We'll watch it. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. MAGOWAN-If you're going to do apartments on Main Street, you better do it before Rich Schermerhorn grabs hold of that idea. MR. ETHIER-But I know there's somebody else coming in for the corner of Pine. So it's starting, and it's going to, and I don't think it'll be very long, and then once it's known, this formula's known that, hey, you can do residential there, you'll have everybody coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-That's the hope. MR. ETHIER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-It just takes a couple to get the ball rolling. MR. ETHIER-And you did an awesome. Whoever led the parade on getting that shovel ready did an awesome job. MR. HUNSINGER-That was back in Chris Round's days. Yes. MR. TRAVER-Well, thanks for sharing your ideas. MR. DEEB-Yes. We appreciate you coming in. MR. ETHIER-Now, Laura, how do you want me to, do you want me to actually start putting together the site? MRS. MOORE-Correct. You can go through the Site Plan Review process, get that submitted by the 15th of month, and get into the queue for the agendas. MR. ETHIER-One thing I do want to note is you probably pick up on the zoning. There's a Town easement that goes right across the front of the property. You can't bring that building up to that 40 from the mid, to the mid line of the road. MRS. MOORE-Because of the utilities? MR. ETHIER-There's an easement there. I don't know what he actually need it or if he actually even knew it was there. MRS. MOORE-We do know it's there. I've had discussions with our Zoning Administrator and Staff to assist applicants through that process. MR. ETHIER-A variance maybe? MRS. MOORE-We'll discuss that more. MR. ETHIER-Okay. Very good. Thanks a lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. So, there was something I asked you to remind me to tell the Board this evening. MRS. MOORE-We will have, next week Just Beverages will be on for Site Plan Review and SEAR. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. MOORE-At least start the SEAR process. We will be able to have our counsel here if you have questions about the SEAR process, and we did receive all of the Lead Agency consent forms. So the Planning Board will, one of their motions will be to accept Lead Agency status. MR. HUNSINGER-The reminder is the hydrology report is on line. It's a 200 page document. So if you want to review that, it's on the Town website. MR. TRAVER-And bring something for breakfast. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Hey, everyone. I'm unfortunately going to be on the west coast next week. I have to fly out Sunday. So, I want everybody to take their Vitamin C and all their health pills there. We're down to five. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we'll be down to five. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 03/17/2015) MR. DEEB-We'll be down to five. MR. MAGOWAN-I'm sorry. I've been trying to get out therefor weeks. MR. TRAVER-1 don't blame you. I wish I'd thought of it first. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we're all jealous. MR. DEEB-I'm going to Florida, did I tell you? I'm going to Florida. So we're done. No, I'm not going. I'll stay. MR. HUNSINGER-We'd still have four. We'd be okay. We can't do business without four. Anything else to be brought before the Board this evening? Would anyone like to make a motion? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2015, Introduced by David Deeb who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Ferone, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ford MR. HUNSINGER-I'll see everyone next Tuesday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 35