One 72315 QUPA Zoning Change App Revised Oct. 2008
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD APPLICATION
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE
Petition No. (Office Use Only):
Applicant's Name: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
Address: 269 Ballard Road, Wilton, NY 12831
To the Applicant:
The Queensbury Planning Board will review this Petition and make recommendations to the
Town Board. As part of this review, the Planning Board will consider the following questions and
submit answers to the Town Board. As the applicant, you will have the option to provide
answers for the Boards to consider.
The following questions have been cut and pasted and answered in the letter of Matthew
F. Fuller, Esq., counsel to the applicants, submitted with this request.
1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone?
2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need?
3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones?
4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone?
5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities?
6. Why is the current zone classification not appropriate for the property in question?
7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use
Master Plan?
9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal?
These questions are based on criteria used to review all zoning amendments.
Application - Petition for Change of Zone
The applicant must submit a fee of$250 with the original & seventeen (17) copies of all
documentation requested in this application to the Town Clerk's office. [Copies are distributed
as follows: Town Board (5), Town Clerk (1), Town Counsel (1), Planning Board (9), File Copy
(1), and Planning Staff(1).
Petition No. (Office Use Only):
Date Received by Town Clerk:
Date Received by Planning Office:
1. Application For: (check where applicable)
Amendment of Zoning Map
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance X Planned Unit Development
2. Current Zoning: OFFICE
Proposed Zoning: OFFICE
3. Project Location:CORNER OF BAY AND BLIND ROCK ROADS, QUEENSBURY,
4. Tax Map ID: 289.19-1-23 through 35
5. Applicant: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
Address: 269 Ballard Road, Wilton, NY 12831
Phone: c/o agent: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., 668-2199
6. Applicant's Agent: Meyer& Fuller, PLLC, Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., counsel
Address: 161 Ottawa Street, Lake George, NY 12845
Phone: 518-668-2199
7. Property Owner: QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
Address: 269 Ballard Road, Wilton, NY 12831
Phone: c/o agent: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., 668-2199
8. Directions to Site: Quaker Road, north to Bay, property is at corner of Bay and Blind
Rock Roads, diagonal from Town Hall.
9. Statistics and Data on Property:
a. Total Area: 34.050 acres
b. Dimensions:
Minimum Width: +/ 1200 feet
Average Width: +/- 1000 feet
Minimum Depth: +/- 1160 feet
Average Depth: +/- 1000 feet
Physical Irregularities (describe): There is a wetland to the southwest corner. The physical
acreage has been deducted from the development calculations as per the town's zoning
law.
c. Existing use(s): include structures, outdoor uses, rights of way, easements, deeds and
limitations to use of property: NONE.
d. Adjacent uses within 400 feet: (state direction, location, use, zone & owner): Note-
distances are approximate from boundary of property and as per warren county gis
mapping. Residential: +/-237 feet from western boundary, +/- 100 feet from apartments
along blind rock; commercial: +/- 100 feet from commercial along blind rock; +/- 125 feet
from commercial/residential along bay road.
e. State, County or Town property within 500 feet: Town Hall, Town Of Queensbury, Bay
Road and Blind Rock Roads are County Highways
10. A Map/Survey of the property to be rezoned must be submitted with the application; items A
through H must be included on the plan and addressed in the submission
A. Map of property at a scale of 1 inch = 40 feet or less with scale, north arrow and
topography. INCLUDED.
B. Boundaries of property with dimensions in feet, including zoning boundary.
INCLUDED.
C. Identification of wetlands, watercourses or waterbodies on site. INCLUDED.
D. Location of any current structures on site, their exterior dimensions, use and
setbacks. NOT APPLICABLE.
E. Location of any proposed easements and driveways. INCLUDED.
F. Location of existing public or private water and sewer facilities. INCLUDED.
G. Location of existing and proposed parking and loading facilities. INCLUDED.
H. Identification of uses (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial) on property within 500
feet. INCLUDED.
11. If Petition is for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance, cite the section(s) to be changed, and
wording to be substituted: Planned Unit Development Application per Art. 12 of
GhapteF 49 of Town Code and Section 261 of NY Town Law.
12. In support of this petition, the following statement is made: Please see the letter from
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., counsel to applicants, submitted with this application.
13. The following documents are submitted herewith:
- Survey Map.
- Adjacent Uses Map (from Warren County GIS).
- Letter from counsel to Applicant.
- Signature Page .
- Plans and Specifications.
- Long EAF with prior SEQRA determination.
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
FOLLOW- UP RESOLUTION
August 22, 2013
TO: Queensbury Partners, LLC PROJECT FOR: Queensbury Partners, LLC
426 Dix Avenue southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds.
Queensbury, NY 12804 Proposal: Fowler Square
Area Variance No. 61-2011
Your application, after review and consideration by the Zoning Board of Appeals, was:
_X_ Approved. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval.
You may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time
frame has expired. See section 179-14-090
A copy of the resolution is attached.
Additional requirements and review for this project shall include:
Zoning Office
_X_ See approval conditions in resolution.
_X_ Submit four (4) copies of the approved plan depicting all changes and conditions
of the approval as adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Please bring the
plans to the Zoning Office for the Zoning Administrator's signature. These plans will
need to be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
_X_ Please contact Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer at 761-8226 within 30 days
of the ZBA approval date for a site inspection before any work is started.
Page 1 of 2
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Continued Follow-Up Resolution Letter
Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Planning Office
_X_ Freshwater Wetlands application and review required by the Planning Board.
_X_ Site Plan application and review required by the Planning Board.
Building Department
_X_ Application for a Building Permit
Application for a Certificate of Occupancy
Application for necessary Sign permits, if applicable
No further discretionary review is necessary at this time
This office will be performing necessary inspections related to Site issues, not Building Code
issues, throughout the duration of the project. Completion of and continued compliance with
all details and conditions of approval are required in order to receive and maintain approvals.
Sincerely,
Craig Brown
Zoning Administrator
CB/sh
Encl.
cc:
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Steven Jackoski Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary
TO: Queensbury Partners, LLC PROJECT FOR: Queensbury Partners, LLC
426 Dix Avenue southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds.
Queensbury, NY 12804 Proposal: Fowler Square
Area Variance No. 61-2011
The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below
stated meeting and has resolved the following:
Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC-Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35
Meeting Date: August 21, 2013
_X_ Re-Affirm Vote of July 24, 2013
MOTION BY RICHARD GARRAND TO REAFFIRM THE VOTE TAKEN ON JULY 24, 2013 FOR
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS LLC AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 SECONDED BY RONALD KUHL,
Upon referral to and receipt of a recommendation from the Warren County Planning Office
which provides a finding of No County Impact, I move to reaffirm the vote taken by the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for the Queensbury Partners Area Variance file number
AV 61-2011 .
Duly adopted this 21 st day of August, 2013 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: NOES
ABSTAINED: Mr. Freer
Sincerely,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
SJ/sh
Cc: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Steven Jackoski Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary
TO: Queensbury Partners, LLC PROJECT FOR: Queensbury Partners, LLC
426 Dix Avenue southwest corner of Bay and Blind Rock Rds.
Queensbury, NY 12804 Proposal: Fowler Square
The Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the following request at the below
stated meeting and has resolved the following:
Area Variance No. 61-2011, Queensbury Partners, LLC-Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23-35
Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Approved _X_
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, Introduced by
Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Southeast corner of Blind Rock and Bay Road. The applicant proposes construction of 11
buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34 acre parcel. Building 1 is to include businesses such as
convenience store, coffee shop, personal service, food service, small office; Building 2 is to
include businesses similar to Building 1 including bank service and will include 70 apartment units
on the 2nd and 3rd floor; Building 3 -11 are to be 2 story, 7,500 sq. ft. footprint with 8 units each
for multi-family residential. On Bay Road the proposed relief requested here is 225 feet.
They're required to have a 300 foot setback for residential on Bay Road. Setback on Blind Rock
Road, the relief requested is 22 feet from the required 75 feet. On the balancing test, whether
benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. The applicant has presented us with other
feasible means. They've made multiple changes to this project at the behest of this Board.
Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character to nearby
properties? I think the public has echoed, yes, it quite possibly could produce an undesirable
change to the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? I don't believe it's substantial. If this
was commercial, all commercial, we wouldn't be here for this, on the Bay Road, we wouldn't
even be asked for relief on Bay Road. Whether the request will have adverse physical or
Page 1 of 2
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
Zoning Board of Appeals - Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Continued ZBA Resolution
ZBA Meeting Date: Wed., July 24, 2013
Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners, LLC
Corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
environmental effects. The applicant, through the traffic study, has addressed some of the
environmental effects, and I believe he's resolved a lot of them. As for the traffic study, the
traffic study seems to have solved the problems, but I think that would remain to be seen. Is this
difficulty self-created? No, it was created when the Planning Board decided they were going
to re-design this property. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 61-2011. The relief is
granted from Section 179-3-040.
Duly adopted this 24th day of July, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hunt
Sincerely,
Steven Jackoski, Chairman
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
SJ/sh
Cc: Matthew F. Fuller, Esq.
Page 2 of 2
Approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless
your lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary (such as review
by the Queensbury Planning Board.)
TOWS! OF OUEENSBURY
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY, 12804-5902
Date: August 28,2013
Re: Site Plan 62-2011 &Freshwater Wetlands 6-2011 —Queensbury Partners
Your application, after review and consideration by the Planning Board, was APPROVED (resolution
attached). The approval is valid for one(1)year from the date of approval. You may request an extension of
approval before the one(1)year time frame has expired(see section 179-14-090).
Before any further review takes place the following items need to be addressed.
1. Engineering sign-off
Submit two(2) copies of revised plans to the Planning Office-one(1) for the file of record;one(1)will
be transmitted to the engineer by the Planning Office.
2. Approved Plans-once enbineering sign-off is received
Submit four (4) copies of the final approved plans to the Planning Office with the resolution co ied on
the final plans in its entirety; include a signature block for the Zoning Administrator's approval stamp.
One(1)copy of the plans will be returned to you to be posted on site.
2. Before any work is started
Once the approved plans have been submitted to the Planning Office please contact Bruce Frank, Code
Compliance Officer at 761-8226 for site inspection before any work is started. Mr. Frank will inspect
the project at various stages to ensure the project has been built as approved.
3. Engineering fees
To be paid upon receipt; no final signatures will be given on the plans until all engineering fees have
paid recreation fees to be paid with submission of building permit
This office will be performing necessary inspections related to Site issues, not Building Code issues,
throughout the duration of the project. Completion of and continued compliance with all details and
conditions of approval are required in order to receive and maintain approvals.
Please contact the Building& Codes office at 518-761-8256 for their requirements regarding submission of a
building permit.
Sincer ly,
9/�_)
Craig Brown,Zoning Administrator
C Blpw
cc: Matthew huller,Esq.
TOWN OF OUEENSBURY
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY, 12804-5902
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 62-2011 &FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
H site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes
construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq. ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include
office, business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of parking area
and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for a
multi-family complex,office and business retail in an Office zone.
SEQR Negative Declaration on 4/23/2013 and reaffirmed on 812712013;
ZBA approved variance requests on 712412013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4123, 5123, 7123 & 812712013;
This application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of
record;
NOTION TO APPRLOVE SITE PLAN NO. 612011_FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2031 OUEENSBURY
PARTNERS.Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080, the Planning
Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code;
2) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone, orange construction fencing shall be installed
around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff;
3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review,
approval,permitting and inspection;
4) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will not be issued
until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6) We are adding a requirement to this motion that we will require them to provide a right turn lane at the
inception of the project,at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road.
7) 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 gDy site work.
b) The project NOT(Notice of Termination)upon completion of the project;
8) 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.
9) Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development
Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
10) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the
beginning of any site work.
11) Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and
all other conditions of this resolution;
12) As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved pians to be provided prior
to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deeb,Mr. Schonewolf, Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan;Mr. Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr. Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
cc: Matthew Fuller,Esq.
(Qpieensl:,wiVPlartninI,Board 040 13)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23,2013
INDEX
Site Plan No.48-2012 Steven&Jennifer Kitchen 1.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39
Site Plan No.17-2013 Kathryn Tabner Rev.Trust 1.
ZBA RECOMMENDATION Tax Map No.226.12-1-23
Site Plan No.62-2011 Queensbury Partners S.
FWW 6-2011 Tax Map No.289.19-1-23 through 35
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
Subdivision No.3-2013 Jennifer Ball 21.
SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No.266.1-1-9
Site Plan No.76-2012 Paul&Margaret Sheehan 23.
Tax Map No.289.13-1-20
Site Plan No.8-2013 CRM Housing Dev.,Inc. 27.
Tax Map No.302.9-1-28.1
Site Plan No.16-2013 Robin Inwald 40.
Tax Map No.227.17-1-16
Subdivision No.5-2012 LARIC Development,LLC 46.
PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.308.12-1-3
ZBA RECOMMENDATION
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.
Cl
Q� piu:�rrr,kreirVPlartnirq;Board 040 13)
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23,2013
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHRIS HUNSINGER,CHAIRMAN
DONALD KREBS,SECRETARY
PAUL SCHONEWOLF
THOMASFORD
BRAD MAGOWAN
STEPHEN TRAVER
DAVID DEEB
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. HUNSINGER-I'll call to order the meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board on
Tuesday,April 23, 2013. For those members of the audience,welcome. There are copies of the
agenda on the back table. There's also a handout for public hearing procedures. Several of the
projects have a public hearing scheduled tonight and we'll go into details when we get to the first
public hearing. The first item on the agenda is an Administrative Item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
SITE PLAN 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN FOR FURTHER TABLING CONSIDERATION
MR.HUNSINGER-I understand this needs to be tabled because the Zoning Board has not yet acted
on the application?
MRS.MOORE-Right. Their application for the appeal is being heard potentially on the first meeting
in May,which is May 22nd at the Zoning Board. So if you would table it to the 23rd again for the
Planning Board meeting.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Would someone like to move that?
RESOLUTION TABLING SP 48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.48-2012 STEVEN&JENNIFER KITCHEN,Introduced by Paul
Schonewolf who moved for its adoption,seconded by Thomas Ford:
Tabled to the May 23rd Planning Board meeting.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. HUNSINGER-We have two items this evening for recommendations to the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA
SITE PLAN NO. 17-2013 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED KATHRYN TABNER REV.TRUST AGENT(S)
BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART&RHODES; HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME AS
APPLICANT ZONING WR-WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL LOCATION 89 MASON ROAD SITE
PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW RESIDENCE. FILLING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE AND
CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 15% IN A WR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING
BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. VARIANCES: RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE,SHORELINE,
1
Q� piu::rrr,kreiaVI"I:nnirq;Board 040 13)
Planning Board review and approval. Variances: Relief requested from side, shoreline, FAR &
height requirements of the WR zone. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2013 KATHRYN TABNER
REVOCABLE TRUST, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Stephen Traver:
The Planning Board,based on limited review,has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated by the current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, if you decided to take the Larry Clute LARIC recommendation at the
end of the recommendations rather than at the end of the meeting,you wouldn't get any argument
from me. I just wanted to let you know that.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay.
MR.ZAPPER-Thank you.
MR.HUTCH I NS-What did you folks think of the small drawings? Do they work better?
MR.HUNSINGER-I like them.
MR.HUTCH I NS-They're hard to read.
MR.HUNSINGER-They can be. They can be,yes. That was a good one.
SITE PLAN NO.62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT
ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY& BLIND ROCK ROADS
SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING
132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE
INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL,AND MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE
LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF PARKING AREA AND OTHER
INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN
REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY, OFFICE AND BUSINESS
RETAIL. VARIANCES: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR BUILDING SETBACKS ON BLIND
ROCK ROAD,RESIDENTIAL SETBACK FROM BLIND ROCK ROAD;BUILDING HEIGHT AND
BUILDING CANOPIES AND SUCH SETBACK FROM BAY ROAD. PB MAY ACKNOWLEDGE
LEAD AGENCY STATUS, CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW, AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99
WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013 WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH
2013 APA,CEA,OTHER NWI WETLANDS,STREAM OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES
TAX MAP NO.289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-9,CHAPTER 94
MATT FULLER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
Q� piu:�rrr,kreia V Plannirq;BnarcG 04,0 13)
actually did a map plan and report which was accepted by the Town. We were going to do an out of
district user thing, and that's what made sewering possible on Bay Road, because the original
estimate for a sewer district to do was like about six plus million dollars,and that would have been,
if it was put out as a project under prevailing wage and so forth. We did it for a mere fraction of
that,okay,well less than the$900,000 that Galusha claims he spent on it. I know what they spent,
within reasonable,plus or minus$20,000,maybe$50,000,but in any case,that's not the point. My
point is this. The pump station that is presently down there is a T-4 Gorman Rub pump station,
which we specked,based on what the build out at the time was,the existing Code, okay. So we
specked that pump station, and also we had a consideration for what the downstream gravity
portion of the sewer was,which is all of Cronin Road. I've since spoke to the Town Engineer,and t
they've run all the numbers on this. I'm very confident that he is correct that it could handle the
capacity,even though the slope of that thing is.3%which is getting very close to what the minimum
slope is for a gravity sewer. So I'm happy with that,but the problem is,and he's looking at these
numbers. I would suggest to you, before you do anything,you talk to him about, A, when the
trigger point is that that pump station would have to be changed to a T-5 or T-6 pump station,and,
B,when Henry Hess was the Town business manager,whatever you want to call him,treasurer,or
whatever,he did a very careful analysis of the benefit tax that would have to be put in place for the
residents. Now I don't know what kind of a, if there was any compensation to Galusha or not. I
know Schermerhorn was paid some amount of money, I believe it was like$190,000,because we
built into that capacity for the existing Code at the time, and not just for what we would have
considered for a needs for an out of district user,which would have been a single purpose user. So
basically we specked it out for the entire Bay Road corridor. Now,you really need to look at this,
because here's the deal. You can't have Resident A being charged more than Resident B. That'll
create a lawsuit for you in a heartbeat. So you really need to look at any additional expenses which
will be incurred which would be a new pump station. Everything else,from what I could see,would
probably be okay,but you really need to think about that,because somebody's going to come along
and say,hey,wait a minute,these folks were paying that,you're asking me to pay this,whoa,that's a
no go,and the State will look very not well on that. I think,Chris,you know that,you were involved.
So be forewarned on that. That's one thing. This is a little bit aside from this. This is my own
jollies,if you will. If Rich Schermerhorn thought,and we all know Rich is an extremely successful
builder/developer of apartment complexes. If Rich Schermerhorn thought for one second that he
could build and successfully rent buildings that had retail or office space below it and apartments
above it, I can tell you with absolute certainty,he would have done it. Brad,do you know if he's
ever built one like that? He hasn't? Okay. End of discussion. I would really like to see the
marketing plan that these guys have,because I'm going to be willing to bet you that five years from
now you're going to see commercial space underneath apartments vacant. It's just not going to
happen. Everybody else on Bay Road has done what was asked of them,Valente,Schermerhorn,
everyone else has followed the Code up to this point. What you folks are going to do now tonight
and tomorrow is going to set in place something that our kids will have to live with,and,sure,it'll
work,but is it right? I don't think so.
MR.HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. No other takers? We will conclude the public
hearing for this evening. We will leave the public hearing open,however. There's a couple,well,
one administrative item that we need to do before we move forward on any further discussion,and
that is to accept the Lead Agency status,and I believe there was a sample resolution in our package.
I'm sorry,Acknowledging Lead Agency status. So if someone would like to move that.
RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS SP#62-2011 FWW 6-2011;AV 61-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
WHEREAS,the applicant has submitted the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes construction
of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for the site include
office,business retail,and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for installation of
parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site Plan review and
approval is required for multi-family,office and business retail. Variances: Relief is requested for
building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road; building height
and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road. PB may acknowledge Lead Agency status,
conduct SEQRA review,and make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
WHEREAS,in connection with the project,the Town of Queensbury Planning Board,by resolution,
previously authorized the Community Development office to notify other involved agencies of the
desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review;
15
Q� piu:�kr�,k�eia V L"I:2nning,Board 04,0 13)
WHEREAS,the Zoning Administrator has advised that other involved agencies have been notified
and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,
MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE
NO. 61-2011, FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 & SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS, Introduced by Paul Schonewolf who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald
Krebs:
In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add as a result of the comments?
MR.FULLER-Just two quick comments. One,and Mary Lee brought up a question about the sewer,
and I think that might have,I might not have been clear enough when I was talking about the sewer
line. We're not doing anything north of the project. So it won't, we're not going to impact the
north,when I say north,north of Bay and Blind Rock as far as the sewer line goes. We won't be
touching the line. We don't have to. It's not part of the project. It's not needed.
MR.FORD-You're not going to be tied into that?
MR.FULLER-Not that line to the north,no. The bigger line to the south we will be. The one that
Dan put in,it'll be tied into that,that sewer line south,going south.
MR.MAGOWAN-Are there two lines that go down?
MR. FULLER-No,there's one, but coming from the deal that was struck on Surrey Fields to get to
that line is the one she was talking about,but the line from the intersection south has already taken
the Town.
MR.FORD-But that will be tied in together?
MR.FULLER-It is right now,yes. We'll be tying in to the line we put in,yes,not the smaller line to
the north.
MR.GALUSHA-Yes,there's a three inch line that runs from the corner north that ties in,and I think
you folks have come across the street and tie in. From there it's a gravity line all the way down to
where it ties in. I think that's a 10 inch. We oversized that line when we did with C.T. Male. I
mean,originally I believe we had a,don't quote me,like an eight inch line. I think we sized it up to
take on,and they calculated a lot of the flows from not only our project,but all the other projects
above us,I think even cedarcrest,even though they're not using it,they're in a calculation. Mike's
got the whole chart.
MR.FULLER-So the line gets bigger right here at the intersection.
MR.GALUSHA-Right.
MR.FULLER-That small line dumps into it. The one going south is 12.
MR.MAGOWAN-Now does that tie into Schermerhorn's pump?
MR.FULLER-It
goes down to the pump.
MR.GALUSHA-It all ends up down there,yes.
6
Qi piu��rrr,kreia7I"Iannirg;I narcG 04,0 13)
MR.FULLER-And that's all,we gave the sewer department everything,all the calcs and everything,
even from the prior report,the updated numbers,all of that,you know,and with the comments we
had heard before,we kind of expected there's going to be some comment on the pump station and
there wasn't. They took all that into account and got back to us with the same e-mail you guys got.
Here's the comments we have,deal with us.
MR. MAGOWAN-Well, am I correct to say that really one of the main reasons the line went from
here and then further up,because Surrey Field's system was failing?
MR.FULLER-Yes.
MR.GALUSHA-Well,we brought the line up here. They hooked onto it,like the Town did after,after
we put the line in,they hooked up to it. I wasn't part of that,I don't know.
MR.MAGOWAN-But that was one of the reasons why you kept going?
MR.FULLER-No,they didn't. They ran it right to here,the corner.
MR.GALUSHA-To the corner. We ran it to the intersection on the north end,would be the north
end of our property. We put a manhole right there, then the Town, I don't know if the Town
hooked into it first or Surrey Fields hooked into it first, I'm not sure which one hooked in, but
they're both hooked into it now.
MR.MAGOWAN-All right,so you didn't bring the line down from Surrey Fields?
MR.GALUSHA-No,that was done by,I believe,Trinity Construction did that,I believe,or somebody
contracted to do it.
MR.MAGOWAN-Because Surrey Fields systems were failing?
MR.FULLER-There were some angry homeowners.
MR.GALUSHA-They were failing at the time.
MR.FULLER-I was there.
MR.GALUSHA-And I think they were looking to go another way,until we put the line up there,if I'm
not mistaken.
MR. FULLER-And the last commented I wanted, Mrs. Sonnabend had commented about the
southern piece of the property and more residential. That, Craig Brown's zoning determination,
you guys had that, it's been part of the record forever. He calculated the allowed density. The
allowed density is 142,and we have used that allowed density in residential. So,I mean,I know the
comment about variances are bad. Anybody could apply for one,but I think how this project has
gone,a variance coming back for more residential probably wouldn't be very well received. So,no,
that is a flexible space to the south. We've shown building. We're taking into account for
stormwater, parking, utilities the whole nine yards, but if it was ever used, that would need site
plan approval. The idea is,hey,if a big commercial office user needs a space,obviously we would
come back and build it. That would be great,and we don't have a problem with that,but,no,it's
noL residential to the south. We've used the density in the project LhaL's planned I'll call it on Lhe
northern part,and that was it. I just wanted to hit those two pertinent comments.
MR.FORD-Thank you.
MR.HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? Is the Board comfortable in
reviewing the SEQR?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Yes.
MR.HUNSINGER-Itis a Long Form. Okay. Whenever you're ready.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?
117
Q� piu��rrr,kreia V tllaivr jrq;Ian ird 04,0 13)
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes.
MR.FORD-Yes.
MR.TRAVER-Small to moderate,mitigated by Site Plan Review.
MR.KREBS-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found
on the site?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns,or surface water runoff?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect air quality?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?
MR.FORD-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered
species?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
�k
Q� piu��rrr,kreiaVI"Iannirg;Board 040 13)
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre-historic or
paleontological importance?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces
or recreational opportunities?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR. KREBS-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical
environmental area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR617.14?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will there be objectionable odors,noise,or vibration as a result of
the proposed action?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.FORD-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.KREBS-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR. KREBS-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse
environmental impacts?
MR.TRAVER-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
f
Qi piu:�rrr,kreiaVI"I:nnirq;Board 040 13)
MR.KREBS-I declare a Negative declaration.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
WHEREAS,there is presently before the Planning Board an application for:
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,and
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board
action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:
1. No Federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The following agencies are involved: NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of
Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality
Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
S. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern
and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation
of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York,this Board finds that the action
about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the
Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be
necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by
law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of, April, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Based on the four variances?
MR.HUNSINGER-Yes.
RESOLUTION RE: ZBA RECOMMENDATION FOR AV#61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Site Plan: Applicant proposes
construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft. on a 34.05 acre parcel. The intended uses for
the site include office,business retail,and multi-family. Activities also include land disturbance for
installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated with the project. Site
Plan review and approval is required for multi-family,office and business retail. Variances:Relief is
requested for building setbacks on Blind Rock Road, residential setback from Blind Rock Road;
building height and building canopies and such setback from Bay Road. PB may acknowledge Lead
Agency status,conduct SEQRA review,and 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;
)0
Q� piu:�rrr,kreia V I"I:nnirq;I narcG 04,0 13)
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application,the relief request in the
variance application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and
surrounding community,and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO.61-2011,FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-
2011, AND SITE PLAN 62-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS. Introduced by Donald Krebs who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Paul Schonewolf:
Per the resolution prepared by Staff. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not
identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-Good luck.
MR.FULLER-Thank you.
MR.GALUSHA-Thank you.
MR.HUNSINGER-You're welcome.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-You did not approve it?
MR. HUNSINGER-We did not approve it, no. We made a recommendation to the Zoning Board.
They have to go before the Zoning Board next. They have to go to the Zoning Board tomorrow
night.
MR.KREBS-Yes,and once they go to the Zoning Board,if they get approval,they have to come back
before us again for site plan review.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
SUBDIVISION NO.3-2013 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW JENNIFER BALL OWNER(S) PAMELA
HARRIS ZONING RR-3A-RURAL RESIDENTIAL 3 ACRES LOCATION PICKLE HILL ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 20.88 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 16
& 4.89 ACRES. A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE 4.89
ACRE PARCEL. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND
APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE NOA 1-96,A V 51-90,SP 56-91, SP 43-91, BP 92-289
APA, CEA, OTHER L G PARK CEA LOT SIZE 20.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9
SECTION CHAPTER A-183,CHAPTER 147
JENNIFER BALL, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-Applicant proposes a subdivision of a 20.88 acre parcel into two lots of 16&4.89
acres. A single family dwelling is to be constructed on the 4.89 acre parcel. Subdivision of land
requires Planning Board review and approval.
MR.HUNSINGER-Good evening.
MS.BALL-How are you?
MR.HUNSINGER-Good. How are you?
MS.BALL-I'm good. Jen Ball.
MR.HUNSINGER-Would you like to describe your project,what you'd like to do?
r.7
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.KREBS-Only if they're$50 bills.
MR.HUNSINGER-Well,we also have a public hearing scheduled with this project. Is there anyone in
the audience that wants to address the Board?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.HUNSINGER-Any written comments?
MRS.MOORE-No.
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing,and,again,let the record show no comments
were received. We will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.HUNSINGER-This,too,is a Type II SEAR. So no additional SEQR review is necessary,and,with
that,I will entertain a motion.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP#45-2013 TRUSTCO BANK
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes an ATM addition by redesigning existing drive-thru lanes. Site & building
improvements in a CI zone requires Planning Board review and approval.
SEQR Type II-no further review needed;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2013 TRUSTCO BANK, Introduced by Donald Krebs
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Stephen Traver:
As per the resolution prepared by Staff.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel;
3) The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work;
4) Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Traver,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Ford,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Deeb,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck.
MR.SLEECEMAN-All right. Thank you.
TABLEDITEM:
SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011 SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY
PARTNERS AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER,ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING 0-
OFFICE LOCATION SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BAY & BLIND ROCK ROADS APPLICANT
16
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 11 BUILDINGS TOTALING 132,000 SQ. FT. ON A 34.05 ACRE
PARCEL. THE INTENDED USES FOR THE SITE INCLUDE OFFICE, BUSINESS RETAIL, AND
MULTI-FAMILY. ACTIVITIES ALSO INCLUDE LAND DISTURBANCE FOR INSTALLATION OF
PARKING AREA AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE AND
UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL IS
REQUIRED FOR MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX,OFFICE AND BUSINESS RETAIL IN AN OFFICE ZONE.
CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11; SUB 13-99 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL APRIL 2013
WARREN CO. DPW REFERRAL MARCH 2013 APA, CEA,OTHER NWI WETLANDS, STREAM
OVERLAY LOT SIZE 34.050 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-
3-040,179-9,CHAPTER 94
MATT FULLER&DAN GALUSHA,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS.MOORE-Sure. Under Summary,the applicant has completed the site plan application and the
freshwater wetlands permit application for project on the corner of Bay and Blind Rock Road that
involves the construction of 11 buildings -9 of which are residential, 1 mixed commercial
residential building, and 1 commercial with associated site work. The Planning Board has
completed the SEQR review for this project as a negative declaration and has provided a
recommendation to the Zoning Board that there are no adverse impacts related to the variance
request for the project. The Planning Board may consider during the reviewing opportunities to
incorporate public transportation, tourist traffic, residential storage of recreational vehicles i.e.
boats and recreational vehicles. The Planning Board may discuss as part of site plan review how
the buildings and other site features work together and interact with the surrounding area.
MR.HUNSINGER-Thank you,and I would just add for the benefit of the Board,we are joined by the
Town Engineer,Sean. Thank you for coming. Good evening and we will soon be joined by the Town
Counsel. Good evening.
MR. FULLER-Good evening. For the record, Matt Fuller with Meyer & Fuller, for the applicant,
Queensbury Partners. I'm joined with Dan Galusha tonight,one of the project owners. I think I'll
just start, recap where we've been. I think Staff had updated the Board. When we last appeared
before the Board,it was for a recommendation to the ZBA on what amounted to four variances,one
from the 300 foot setback along Bay,two for the 75 foot setbacks along Blind Rock,the third was
the height setback above 40 feet. We were just under 47 feet, and the other was for the
accoutrements along the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock, some pergolas and outside awnings,
things like that. We went to the ZBA and I thought those things might have been acceptable to
them,but it came out that the height and the improvements along the corner there,Bay and Blind
Rock,again,the outside seating and things like that,seem to have been a concern,and one of the
variances down along Blind Rock,one of the buildings,we were asked to take a harder look at that
to see if we can move some of those around,and we did end up cutting one back entirely. I mean,it
moved,the net effect of what it did was it moved the road a little bit closer to the wetland but not
within the setbacks. So we don't have any issues there. We still needed one for the, I'll call it the
eastern most residential building along Blind Rock. We did cut the height down from 45 to 40,
which basically just removed the elevation to hide the mechanicals,and I will say,you know,just as
part of the final approval from the ZBA, that I think in hindsight that probably was regrettable
decision,and 1 think some of the members on that Board felt that way,but it is what it is. I mean,a
concern was expressed with regard to height. There were other height,despite arguments that no
variances have been granted along Bay for the height,there were variances along Bay,and we were
right in that ballpark. There was one at about 45 feet. So we were in that ballpark. Again,that last
variance, too, was to hide the mechanicals. So we thought we were in that ballpark, but
nonetheless,the ZBA,a few members made it clear that that wasn't acceptable to them. So we cut
the buildings down, and resulted in two setbacks, one, again, for that first residential structure
heading down Blind Rock Road,and the other for the setback from Bay Road of 300 feet. So those
are from upwards of into the 20's of variances that we were at. We finally ended up with two. The
brief memo that I gave you tonight just goes through the site plan criteria,it's in the site plan review
law,and again,we've been,again dawned on me when I heard the number on the application,2011,
where we are and where we've come on this project,and so I was thinking about it,and I took the
site plan criteria and really went through it,because,you know,you get a lot of projects before you,
and what you're doing and the questions that you guys ask as you're going through that criteria.
It's not like a ZBA where you have to answer specific questions,but,you know,even on the last one,
asking about lighting,things like that,that's the criteria you guys are dealing with,and you do that,
and you do it diligently. So I wanted to just kind of recap where we've been,the various arguments
that have come up in the context of the site plan review law that we have to deal with,and if I could,
I'll try not to take a lot of time,but I wanted to go through just the comments that I've prepared for
17
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.SCHONEWOLF-So does 1.
MR.TRAVER-That's my feeling.
MR.SCHONEWOLF-Don's got a lot of things he's got to include in it.
MR.SCHACHNER-Chris,I mean,if you entertain a motion,you know you've got to close the public
hearing first.
MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I was about to ask the Board if anyone would like to make a motion,
would anyone on the Board like to make a motion. I'm sorry?
MR.SALVADOR-Are you going to allow rebuttal?
MR.HUNSINGER-No.
MR.SALVADOR-1 thought you said she.
MR.HUNSINGER-No,we have no obligation to provide a rebuttal.
MR.TRAVER-I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing.
RESOLUTION CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING SP 62-2011&FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
MR.HUNSINGER-We have a motion.
MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 62-2011 & FWW 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Ford
MR.HUNSINGER-Okay. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR.HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion?
MR.KREBS-Yes. I'd like to put forward a motion to Approve Site Plan No.62-2011 &Freshwater
Wetlands 6-2011 for Queensbury Partners. Waivers were not asked for, so we're not denying or
granting them,per this particular copy I have,okay,and I was just going to point out this is per the
draft which was for 4/23,okay,and of course engineering signoff will be required prior to signature
of Zoning Administrator for the approved plans.
MR.TRAVER-Second.
MR.HUNSINGER-We have a motion and a second. Did you have a comment,Sean?
MR.DOTY-I thought perhaps you might want to make one of the conditions that turn lanes be done.
So we're all on the same page,because that was brought up.
MR.HUNSINGER-I was just going to ask the Board if there were any special conditions.
MR.KREBS-Well,you know,personally,I feel that these engineering things should have been taken
care of a long time ago. Okay,but we don't do,we don't have a process,and I remember a couple of
years ago I made a big thing out of this. We need to change the procedure so that you resolve those
engineering things before they ever come to the Board,and only those that can't be resolved should
come before the Board. We get these papers,23,34 engineering comments,you know,it's kind of
ludicrous. So,but in any case,this particular draft does require engineering signoff prior to. So it
will be resolved.
MR.FULLER-We don't have a problem with that.
34
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.DEEB-Are we going to include it in the motion?
MR.SCHONEWOLF-It is included.
MR.HUNSINGER-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. As he stated before, Chazen reviews stormwater and provides comments on
that. In regards to traffic,that is something that the applicant has agreed to,and I would encourage
you to add that as a condition.
MR.HUNSINGER-Would you like to make an amendment to your motion,Mr.Krebs?
MR.KREBS-Yes,I'd like to make an amendment that a traffic study provided by the applicant will be
reviewed by the Town Engineering department for proper use.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do you want to specify the turning lane?
MR.DEEB-I want to specify the turning lane.
MR.KREBS-Okay. New amendment. We will require the applicant,when constructing the project,
to make available a right turn lane,which will give us a left turn lane also,at the corner of Bay Road
and Blind Rock Road.
MR.DEEB-At the inception of the project.
MR.KREBS-Yes,but you have to understand,we're saying this,you have to understand,they can't
make that decision. That is a Warren County road and Warren County is the only person who can
make the decision.
MR.HUNSINGER-Well,they have to grant the approval.
MR. FULLER-We'll apply. 1 can concede that we're going to include it on our application for the
permit.
MR.KREBS-Okay.
MR.TRAVER-And they've already discussed it with them.
MR.FULLER-We did.
MR.HUNSINGER-Do we have a second to the amendment?
MRS.MOORE-And as approved by the County DPW.
MR.FULLER-Correct.
MR.KREBS-Okay.
MR.HUNSINGER-We have an amendment that was.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Can I just ask you, so were you actually going to say at the inception of or, I just
want to make sure I get the wording right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right Mr. Deeb suggested, I think, that the condition regarding the turn lane
include that it be provided at the inception of the project, and Maria's asking is that part of the
motion?
MR. KREBS-I don't believe that we can require that because you have to have Warren County's
approval to change their road.
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. All due respect, Mr. Krebs, you can require it. Warren County may not
agree, and in which case the applicant will not be able to fulfill your approval, but legally you do
have the authority to require a right turn lane, but the question that's on the table from our
secretary is is Mr.Deeb's editorial comment suggesting that the condition include the phrase at the
inception of the project,is that part of your motion?
3S
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
MR.KREBS-Yes,because they've already agreed to do it.
MR.SCHACHNER-All right. So it's part of the motion and part of the second.
MR.KREBS-Yes.
MR.SCHACHNER-Yes and yes.
MR. HUNSINGER-And we did have a second from Mr. Schonewolf. Is everyone clear on the
amendment and the resolution?
MR.TRAVER-Thank you for that clarification.
MR.HUNSINGER-Is there any further discussion?
MS.GAGLIARDI-I hate to bother you again,but could,I hate to ask you,but could you just start the
motion over again,just so I'm sure 100%what you want in the motion,because I want to make sure
I get it right. I'm sorry,but there was a lot of discussion.
MR.KREBS-Well,we weren't provided with a proper motion tonight. So this one is from a May 23rd,
but I'll read it again.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SP 4 62-2011&FWW 6-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS
A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following:
Applicant proposes construction of 11 buildings totaling 132,000 sq.ft.on a 34.05 acre parcel. The
intended uses for the site include office, business retail, and multi-family. Activities also include
land disturbance for installation of parking area and other infrastructure and utilities associated
with the project. Site Plan review and approval is required for a multi-family complex,office and
business retail in an Office zone.
SEQR Negative Declaration on 4/23/2013 and reaffirmed on 8/27/2013;
ZBA approved variance requests on 7/24/2013;
A public hearing was advertised and held on 4/23,5/23,7/23&8/27/2013;
This application is supported with all documentation,public comment,and application material in
the file of record;
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 61-2011 FRESHWATER WETLANDS 6-2011
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by
Stephen Traver:
Per the draft resolution.
1) Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code-Chapter 179-9-080,the
Planning Board has determined that this proposal satisfies the requirements as stated in the
Zoning Code;
2) The limits of clearing will constitute a no-cut buffer zone,orange construction fencing shall be
installed around these areas and field verified by Community Development staff,
3) The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its
review,approval,permitting and inspection;
4) If curb cuts are being added or changed a driveway permit is required. A building permit will
not be issued until the approved driveway permit has been provided to the Planning Office;
5) Engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator of the approved plans;
6) We are adding a requirement to this motion that we will require them to provide a right turn
lane at the inception of the project,at the corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road.
7) If required,the applicant must submit a copy of the following to the Town:
36
(Queensbury Planning Board 08/27/2013)
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;
8) 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(Stormwater 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.
9) Final approved plans,in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building
and Codes personnel.
10)The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit
and/or the beginning of any site work.
11)Subsequent issuance of further permits,including building permits is dependent on compliance
with this and all other conditions of this resolution;
12)As-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans to be
provided prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Schonewolf, Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
MR.FULLER-Thank you.
MR. HUNSINGER-You're all set. Good luck. Is there any other business to be brought before the
Board this evening? If not,would anyone like to make a motion?
MR.FORD-So moved.
MOTION TO ADIOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF AUGUST 27.2013.
Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption,seconded by Donald Krebs:
Duly adopted this 27th day of August,2013,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Deeb,Mr.Schonewolf,Mr.Ford,Mr.Magowan,Mr.Krebs,Mr.Traver,Mr.Hunsinger
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Chris Hunsinger,Chairman
37
1l 1/
r
f
f � A
1, J
r
,1 1
I
,
ME
r„
500 FOOT USES MAP
N
��Illlloliw w: w E ueensbury Partners LLC
IV III'��Illllollm
S"
USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THIS MAP IS SUFFICIENT FOR
PURPOSES INTENDED.
Printed: Jul 03, 2012
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY WATER DEPARTMENT
4\\
g 823 CORINTH ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12804 PHONE(518)793-8866 • FAX(518) 798-3320
American Water Works
Association MEMBER
BRUCE OSTRANDER CHRISTOPHER HARRINGTON, P.E.
Superintendent Engineer
j
s'
April 25, 2013
i
Mr. Douglas Heller
The LA Group, PC
40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866 ,
1 '
Dear Mr. Heller: '
I am writing in reference to property located at the
intersection of Bay and Blind rock Roads in the Town of Queensbury,
New York. This property is located within the Queensbury water
district and municipal water is available.
If you have any further questions please contact our office.
Sincerely,
Bruce Ostrander
Superintendent
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Application for Approval of Plans for
Bureau of Water Supply Protection Public Water Supply Improvement
Applicant Location of works(C,V,T) County I Water District(area served)
Queensbury Partners, LLC I Queensbury(Town) Warren Queensbury
TYPe of Ownership-- I ----� �--- ---I_------ ---1------ _.____----- --
❑ Municipal j ❑ Commercial ® Private-Other ❑Authority [-]Interstate
❑ Private- Institutional ❑Federal ❑International
❑ Industrial
❑ Water Works Corp. ❑ Board of Education ❑State ❑Native American Reservation
I i
rEN odifications to existing system. If checked,provide AWS ID# NY 5 6 0 0 1 1 4
ew System? If checked,provide capacity development(viability)analysis*
----.--this project involves a new system, new water district, or a district extension provide boundary description location details in
format on CD or Floppy Disk. If digital boundary location details are not available provide a text description.gital G1S Data Provided ❑Digital CAD Data Provided ❑Other Digital Data provided ❑Text Description
ded
ng Source ®Private [-]DWSRF** ❑Federal ❑Other
If DWSRF is checked,provide DWSRF#
Estimated Project Cost
Source $ Treatment $ Storage $ Distribution$125,000
` I
Pumping$_ Engineering $ S 0QQ Legal/Permitting$ Total$ 130,000
T e of Prc j ect - — ----v--- ---- -
yp � ❑Corrosion Control ❑U.V.Disinfection ®Distribution
❑ Source ❑Pumping Unit ❑Fluoridation ❑ Storage I
❑Transmission ❑Chlorination ❑ G
❑Other Treatment Other
Project Description_Install 8"ductile iron water service theating a looped system to provide water service from both Bay
Road and Blind Rock Road. Approximately 2,055 feet of 8"water line will be installed to service two mixed use buildings and nine !'
multi-family residential buildings. �.
Population
I
Total population %population %population served
of Service area 430 actually served 100 affected by project 0
1 Latest total consumption data(in MGD) NYS Professional
Licensed Engineer'
Stamp&Signature***
Avg.day 44,150 gpd Year 2014 ; x
Max.day 88,300 gl>d Year 2014
Peak hr. 5,520 gph Year 2014
�
Name of design engineer t ti
Douglas Heller,The LA Group PC
Address 40 Long Alley,Saratoga Springs,NY 12866 Telephone No. (518)587-810Q 1
F.,-Mail dhellera7thelagroup.com Fax No (518)587-0180
—�--- ------- --
Name and title of applicant:or designated representative E1 u cSwG n✓ t61 � _e}t �'� ti eG I
Address_ Z_ o v-i 'A'
Signature of Applicant ate
NOTE:All applications must be accompanied by 3 sets of plans,3 sets ofspecifications and an engineer's report describing the project in detaiL The project muss first be
discussed with the appropriate city,county,district or regional public health engineer.Signature by a designated representative Hurst be accompanied by a letter of
authorization.
'Additional information regarding capacity development may be found at hit th.,lu(c_nV_u,m,dohi��ttutmain hnn
*Current DWSRF project listings may be tbund aC blip w�����health st ttc.ns ushrvsdvh/�yllclmam,hun
'By affixing the stamp and signatmc the Design Lngineer agrees that the plans and specifications have been prepaued in accordance with the most recent version ofthe
recommended standards for water Gturks and m accord cue with the NYS Svutauy Code
UUn-348 (02705)
the LA group 40 Long Mey P518/587-81100
Landscape Architecture 5arato6a Springs F 518/587-0180
and Engineering,PC, Now`Bark 12,866 wwww thalagroupzorn
Engineering Report
Water and Sanitary Sewer
For
°OWL-WEIR SQUARE
BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK
Prepared For
QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC
c/o D.A. Collins Companies
269 Ballard Road
Wilton, NY 12831
Prepared By
The LA Group, P.C.
40 Long Alley
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
April 18, 2013
Engineering Report Fowler Square
Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
201277
I. Introduction
This Project involves the construction and operation of +/-14,000 square feet (s.f) of
professional office, 42,180 s.f. of mixed use retail business and 142 residential apartments on
land at the intersection of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road located in the Town of Queensbury,
Warren County.
IL Proiect Description
This project will be constructed on an unimproved portion of the property. The proposed
development includes construction of nine (9) multi-family residential buildings and two (2)
mixed use buildings at the southwest corner of the Blind Rock Road and Bay Road intersection.
The approved uses within the mixed use buildings include convenience store, coffee shop, food
service, offices, bank, retail shops, and personal services. Proposed mix use buildings have not
been leased so the future uses are unknown at this time.
111. Existing Water and Sanitary Sewer Utilities
Municipal water service is currently provided by the Town of Queensbury Water Department.
Along the north side of Blind Rock Road there is a 12-inch ductile iron pipe main and along the
east side of Bay Road there is a 12-inch cast-iron pipe main.
Municipal sewer service is located along the west side of Bay Road, with the last manhole in the
gravity line at the intersection of Blind Rock Road. The sewer main is a recently installed 8-inch
PVC pipe.
IV. Proiected Water and Wastewater Flows
Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations
Average Daily Flow (ADF) _
Office/Commercial: (52,000 square feet) x (0.10 gpd/sf)i = 5,200 gpd
Restaurant: (200 seats) x (35 gpd/seat)i =7,000 gpd
2 bdrm Apartments: (142 apartments) x (225 gpd/apartment) = 31,950 gpd
Total= 44,150 gpd
Peaking factor for sanitary sewer flow is 4 times the average3.
Peak Hourly Flow (PHF) _ (44,150 gpd/720 minutes per day) x (4 peaking
factor) = 245.3 gpm.
1
Engineering Report Fowler Square
Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
201277
Domestic Water Demand Calculations
Average Daily Flow (ADF) =44,150 gallons per day (gpd)based on Sanitary
Sewer flows.
44,150 gpd/720 minutes per day = 61 gallons per minute (gpm) average.
Peaking factor for instantaneous water use is estimated to be 10 times the average
based upon past experience. Maximum Instantaneous Water Demand is estimated
at 613 gpm.
V. Proposed Water and Wastewater Utilities
A. Proposed Domestic Water Utilities
To service the project, the existing waterlines located along Bay Road and Blind Rock
Road are proposed to be tapped for an 8-inch ductile iron water service. The proposed fl-
inch service will be installed through the site creating a looped system to provide water
service from both Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. The static pressure available at the
proposed connection into Bay Road is approximately 85 psi based on hydrant flow tests
provided by the Town. When the hydrants were flowing at approximately 1,100 gpm the
residual pressure dropped to approximately 50 psi indicating adequate supply.
The new buildings will have fire sprinklers and the domestic services will be metered.
Four fire hydrants are proposed throughout the property, with two of the hydrants placed
at dead ends in the line to provide flushing of the water line, if necessary. Service
connections, testing and disinfection will be specified in accordance with NYSDOH and
Queensbury Water Department standards.
B. Proposed Wastewater Utilities
Sewer service for the project will be provided from the Queensbury Sewer District along
Bay Road. The southern building (Building 41) along Bay Road is proposed to wye
directly into the municipal main along Bay Road, approximately 350' south of the
proposed driveway entrance. The remaining buildings will be collected in the proposed
internal sewer network and discharge into a proposed manhole along Bay Road. All
proposed sewer laterals will be gravity fed. As previously mentioned, the developers are
uncertain of their future tenants but any tenants providing food service will be required to
have an internal grease trap as part of the establishment.
1. From Table 3,NYSDEC 1988 Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works.
2. From Figure 1,GLUMRB Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities.
Attachments
Sanitary Sewer Calculations (Attachment A)
2
ATTACHMENT A
Sanitary Sewer Calculations
FOWLER SQUARE
SANITARY SEWER
BASIS OF DESIGN
Sewer Connection
ESTIMATE MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW:
APARTMENTS (2BR) :
NO. OF APARTMENTS 142 EA (PROJECTED)
DESIGN FLOW, Qa = 225 GPD/EA (ESTIMATED)
31, 950 GPD
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL:
NO. SQ FT 32180 SF
DESIGN FLOW, Qc = 0.1 GPD/SF (ESTIMATED)
3218 GPD
MAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 35, 168 GPD (Qa + Qb + Qc)
AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 48. 84 GPM (BASED ON 12 HOUR DAY)
PEAK FLOW, Qp = 195.4 GPD (PEAKING FACTOR OF 4)
Check capacity of 8 -inch sewer (flowing 1/2 full) :
Use Manning's Equation where:
Cross-sectional area, A = 0.17 SF
Wetted perimeter, P = 1.05 FT
Channel slope, S = 0.004 FT/FT
Roughness coefficient, n = 0.013 (10 States minimum)
Flow, Q = 0.38 CFS or 171.5 GPM
Velocity, V = 2.19 FPS
1 4/22/2013
FOWLER SQUARE
SANITARY SEWER
BASIS OF DESIGN
Building #1 Sewer Connection
ESTIMATE MAXIMUM DAILY FLOW:
RESTAURANT:
NO. SEATS 200 SEAT
DESIGN FLOW, Qb = 35 GPD/SEAT (ESTIMATED)
7000 GPD
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL:
NO. SQ FT 19826 SF
DESIGN FLOW = 0.1 GPD/SF (ESTIMATED)
1982 GPD
MAX. DAILY FLOW, Q = 8, 982 GPD
AVG. DAILY FLOW, Qav = 12.48 GPM (BASED ON 12 HOUR DAY)
PEAK FLOW, Qp = 49. 9 GPD (PEAKING FACTOR OF 4)
Check capacity of 6 -inch sewer (flowing 1/2 full) :
Use Manning's Equation where:
Cross-sectional area, A = 0.10 SF
Wetted perimeter, P = 0.79 FT
Channel slope, S = 0.010 FT/FT
Roughness coefficient, n = 0.013 (10 States minimum)
Flow, Q = 0.28 CFS or 125. 9 GPM
Velocity, V = 2.86 FPS
1 4/22/2013
FOWLERSQUARE
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
WARREN COUNTY
NEW YORK
APRIL 2013
Prepared for:
Queensbury Partners
Prepared by:
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
80 Wolf Road, Suite 300
Albany, NY 12205
GPI Project#2013 00 1.00
P1Greenman-Pedersen,Inc.
Engineeriing and Construction Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pate
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 2
A. Study Area Description 2
B. Traffic Volumes 5
C. Intersection Operations 5
D. 2013 Existing Operations 7
IV. 2018 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS 7
A. Background Traffic Growth 7
B. 2018 No-Build Operations 7
V. 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS 9
A. Vehicle Trip Generation 9
B. Vehicle Trip Distribution and Assignment 10
C. 2018 Build Operations 14
D. Operational Improvements Considered 15
E. Sight Distance Evaluation 16
F. Coordination with Town and County Highway Departments 16
G. Findings and Recommendations 17
APPENDIX
— Traffic Volume Data
— Trip Generation (Including Internal Capture Summary)
— Capacity Analysis Reports
— Speed Data
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Pate
FIGURE 1 — Site Location Map 3
FIGURE 2—Proposed Site Plan 4
FIGURE 3 —2013 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6
FIGURE 4—2018 No Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 8
FIGURE 5—Vehicle Trip Distribution 11
FIGURE 6—Vehicle Trip Assignment 12
FIGURE 7—2018 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 13
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 —Level of Service Criteria 5
TABLE 2— Site-Generated Vehicle Trips—Fowler Square 9
TABLE 3 —Level of Service Summary 14
TABLE 4 — Comparison of Improvement Options 15
ii
I. INTRODUCTION
Queensbury Partners has retained the services of Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI) to analyze the
traffic impacts associated with the proposed Fowler Square mixed use development. The project
site is in the Town of Queensbury located west of Bay Road and south of Blind Rock Road, as
shown in Figure 1. This site has been analyzed for several land use configurations in recent year.
However, this study focuses on the most recently proposed configuration discussed in Section 11
below.
This report describes existing and future traffic conditions surrounding the site with and without
the proposed development; identifies potential impacts within the study area and presents any
necessary measures to mitigate these impacts.
The following sections of this report detail the analysis assumptions, procedures, and findings,
and present the anticipated affects of the proposed development on the roadway network within
the study area.
IL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed development includes 11 buildings consisting of 42,180 SF of commercial space,
14,000 SF of office space and 142 apartment units. It is anticipated to be completed by 2018.
The site will be provided access to the adjacent roadway network via two driveways. One
driveway will access Bay Road and is located approximately 640 feet south of Blind Rock Road.
The Bay Road driveway will consist of a single entrance lane and dedicated left-turn and right-
turn exit lanes. The second driveway will access Blind Rock Road and is located directly across
from Hunter Brook Lane approximately 350 feet west of Bay Road. The Blind Rock Road
driveway will consist of a single entrance lane and single exit lane. In addition, there is a third
proposed emergency access driveway which is located approximately 480 feet west of the Blind
Rock Road driveway. This driveway will be limited to emergency access and access will be
controlled by a gate. A preliminary site plan is shown on Figure 2.
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 1 %J P1
April 2013
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
A. STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
A review of the roadway network and traffic data was conducted to identify the current
conditions within the study area. The study area for this project includes the following
intersection:
• Bay Road and Blind Rock Road
• Proposed Bay Road Driveway
• Proposed Blind Rock Road Driveway
A description of the roadway and traffic characteristics is provided below.
Bay Road (CR 7) - is a north-south roadway with one travel lane in each direction separated by
a two-way-left-turn-lane (TWLTL). Bay Road provides travel lanes which are 12`wide, a 12'
wide TWLTL and shoulders which are 4' wide. Bay Road provides access to residential and
commercial land uses within the study area. The posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour (mph)
in the vicinity of the site.
Blind Rock Road (CR 17) — Blind Rock Road is an east-west roadway which provides a single
travel lane in each direction. Blind Rock Road provides 12' wide travel lanes, 2' wide shoulders
and has a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.
Bay Road Driveway— The driveway will intersect with Bay Road and provide a single 12' wide
single entrance lane and a 12' wide dedicated left-turn lane and a 12' wide dedicated right-turn
lane for exiting traffic.
Blind Rock Road Driveway— The driveway will intersect with Blind Rock Road and provide a
24' wide roadway for entering and exiting traffic.
The intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road is controlled by a two-phase traffic signal.
Dedicated left-turn lanes are provided on Bay Road, however no separate phasing for the left-
turns is provided. The traffic signal operates with a cycle length of approximately 65 seconds.
Although there appeared to be microwave detectors provided on the traffic signal pole, the
intersection was operating in pre-timed mode.
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 2 %J P1
April 2013
n � ra'"1.� ,•"'i'" ,F 9YT .e �{ y A #.:x..{ �, .4 gg.�...m1,i �»lfJ ��^ice .. :7, �:,.._.
• �} Ate' j ,^,w-"'�'
,
r
E
t q
s
I
a t' r * !^ ( ��„1►�' '°� ,A e '”Y� 'rte``h?u
a
'GLEX LA KE
sip-. r,'� 1}� ` ,•°mak s t'v r`; tom`,.
i � t
a
r
' • '• +1 + ,' . 4"
P
M .
PROJECT SITE
,
s {
1
* i
A,
i
� xN
kA V1 JA ND
ViN
oil
t �
vAo
r
,1 j.
�. k,
t •,a »t..:. v,,� ,,,� Y !A
Y � f
sr rit
6f"
i
�� ' �� 7:':�4 •.� ,�it���, 't >V� ` ,. q�
It
� w
k
J
t� & Nat' n�lr� gr��hi� �-=- it o
i v "..
L.. b
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER"S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROJECT LOCATION
so Wolf Road TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
Suite 300 NEW YORK JOB NO. SCALE: DATE: FIGURE NO.
Albany,NY 12205 2011037.00 NO SCALE 4/2013 1
L£aZL AN'uoll!M NVId 311S 011VINDHOS
�a
- PeoH Plelle9 6w sa!uedwoo su!lloo,y-0 o/o AN'/ungsuaeno
0I-I�siauyred/ungsueeno PeoH>{oo Pulls H p.16'2 PeoH Reg}o wo0 MS
?§ g o NOd43 tld36d axenbS'ialmo� Q o 0
;�I � J/�r�/ii��' /✓G�/ u�� /��I/%J�J�//�/////f/r +0/rr /� �//��/lr ��III��%//��� � c ��,
r r� rH r� I�, �/ �f Ir� '�/f7/j /% � I',rj �� ��i✓�P %r� r � � �
u I'�� //�+(Irr'�lritq✓i;�rururflDl ralh�rlrair�!nur�roferr,Z /j�j,j�j r � �,����°�' J AI��i� � � ���
r. :
/
ro 16 h
r
/
/
.6} Y•.r� / II
Ii
rri i
3(
r�
�. III SII
�` JN is iiia l !rri, �`� / ir,al+", '1/rr /✓`%%����r'N
it
i
i I°u I
V Vil�
r
�r< �r� ,. � � � ✓/�r` i is
ri�Tn1
M /
r r
raw, ,, ,,.,�� ° {��,I�1 iYi%��y"" r C7`Y�u` � ",�d �l� r `�'✓Iii�r f',/
r
l I ! 4
}
1�
'. a„ r0 //1,..;. r%1/ ii'r"' a iri ,1// /i/ �,. % /Yiiarr�, ,����� ///rr,r�r ✓ +r a
r o /u r �r �Y //f / ✓// // �J l�U J,
B. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing traffic operating conditions were determined through field reconnaissance, traffic data
collected by others and traffic counts performed along Bay Road, Blind Rock Road and at the
Bay Road & Blind Rock Road intersection by GPI.
GPI conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the Bay Road and
Blind Rock Road intersection on July 12, 2011. Automatic Traffic Recorders (ATR's) were
placed on Bay Road and Blind Rock Road between July 14, 2011 and July 22, 2011 to record
hourly traffic volumes, vehicle classification and vehicle speeds.
The traffic count data was compared to traffic volume data reported on the Adirondack/Glens
Falls Transportation Council (A/GFTC) website. After reviewing the available data, it was
determined that the traffic count data collected by GPI was consistent with the traffic volume
data included on the A/GFTC website.
As the traffic counts were conducted more than a year ago, historic traffic volume growth trends
within the area were reviewed and used to adjust the counted volumes to approximate the current
2013 existing conditions. A conservative growth rate of 1%per year was selected and confirmed
with A/GFTC to represent traffic variations within the study area due to regional growth. The
resulting 2013 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes are shown on Figure 3. All traffic volume
data reviewed or collected as part of this study are included in the appendix.
C. EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS
The study area intersection was analyzed for capacity and Level-of-Service (LOS) following
procedures set forth in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM2000), published by the
Transportation Research Board (TRB). Intersection operational analyses were conducted
utilizing the Synchro transportation analysis software, version 8.0.
Levels of Service (LOS) for signalized and unsignalized intersections are defined in terms of
average delay per vehicle (in units of seconds per vehicle). LOS ranges from A to F with LOS A
representing unrestricted flow and little or no delay per vehicle, and LOS F representing
congested conditions, long delays and poor traffic operations. The table below presents the LOS
criteria for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. In general, LOS D represents
acceptable operating conditions.
Table 1
Level of Service Criteria
LOS Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
Delay Per Vehicle(sec.) Delay Per Vehicle(sec.)
A < 10.0 < 10.0
B > 10.0 and<20.0 > 10.0 and< 15.0
C >20.0 and<35.0 >15.0 and<25.0
D >35.0 and<55.0 >25.0 and<35.0
E >55.0 and<80.0 >35.0 and<50.0
F >80.0 >50.0
Fowler Square
Traffic Impact Study 5 %J P1
April 2013
N
I--I
v=;
a x �
x
N 24(51)
4 106(105)
BLIND ROCK ROAD j— 32(35) HAVILAND ROAD
52(141)
80(121)— 0
71 (60)—;�
u o m
PROPOSED
PROJECT SITE
LEGEND
AM PEAK HOUR
(PM PEAK HOUR)
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'5 SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
IN
CONSULTG ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 2013 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
80
Wolf TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
SrtiSuite te300 Road NEW YORK JOB N0. SCALE, DATE: IF]GIJRE N0.
ALbany,NY12205 201300100 NO SCALE 4/2013 3
D. 2013 EXISTING OPERATIONS
A capacity analysis was conducted at the study area intersection to determine current operating
conditions. The results of this analysis indicate that under 2013 Existing Conditions all
approaches and individual movements at the intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road
operate at LOS C or better during the AM peak hour. For the PM Peak hour, the eastbound
approach falls to LOS D, but all other approaches remain at LOS C or better. Overall the
intersection operates at LOS B during the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. It
should be noted that the traffic signal is currently operating in pre-timed mode which contributes
to additional delay for each of the approaches because of poor allocation of green time.
The results of capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3 in Section VC of this report.
IV. 2018 NO-BUILD CONDITIONS
To determine the impacts that would be directly attributable to the proposed development, traffic
volumes were projected to the year 2018, the anticipated completion year of the proposed
project. The study area intersections were again analyzed for capacity and level of service under
the future year 2018 No-Build Conditions. The results of this analysis form the baseline by
which project-induced traffic impacts are evaluated.
A. BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH
To account for background traffic growth within the study area, a growth rate 1.0% per year was
applied to the 2013 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes to develop the 2018 No-Build Peak
Hour Traffic Volumes. The 1% growth rate is conservative with actual growth for the area and
was verified by A/GFTC.
The 2018 No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes are shown in Figure 4.
B. 2018 NO-BUILD OPERATIONS
The Bay Road and Blind Rock Road intersection was analyzed under the No-Build Conditions.
The results of this analysis indicate that no change in level of service is expected for any of the
intersection approaches as a result of background traffic growth over the next five years.
Overall, the intersection continues to operate at LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the
PM peak hour, and the only approach that falls below LOS C is the eastbound Blind Rock Road
approach during the PM peak hour, which is expected to continue operating at LOS D.
The results of capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3 in Section VC of this report.
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 7 %J P1
April 2013
N
�MM
F+I
— N 26(54)
4 112(110)
BLIND ROCK ROAD j— 33(36) HAVILAND ROAD
55(148)—�
84(128)— 0
75(63)---1,
c'Y cV
PROPOSED
PROJECT SITE
LEGEND
AM PEAK HOUR
(PM PEAK HOUR)
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
IN
CONSULTG ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 2018 NO—BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
80
Wolf TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
SrtiSuite te300 Road NEW YORK JOB N0. SCALE, DATE: IF]GIJRE N0.
ALbany,NY12205 201300100 NO SCALE 4/2013 4
V. 2018 BUILD CONDITIONS
To determine the nature and extent of impacts directly attributable to site-generated traffic
associated with the proposed development, traffic volumes were analyzed for capacity and level
of service under the future year 2018 Build Conditions. The results of this analysis were
evaluated to determine the impacts to the study area intersection.
A. VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
Vehicle trips associated with the proposed development were established using the
methodologies and data presented in the Trip Generation Manual, 9,h Edition, (Institute of
Transportation Engineers), which provides trip generation information for various land use types.
The proposed development is expected to consist of 42,180 SF of commercial space, 14,000 SF
of office space and 142 apartment units. Data for Land Use Codes (LUC) 710 (Office Space),
826 (Specialty Retail), 912 (Drive-In Bank) and 220 (Apartments) were used to estimate the trip
generation for the development.
Vehicle trips generated by the proposed facility during peak hours of adjacent street traffic is
expected to be 150 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 279 vehicle trips during the PM
peak hour before adjustment. However, the vehicle trips calculated for these proposed uses
represent single-use trips on the study area roadway system. Studies have shown that for
developments of mixed-use or multi-use sites, it is realistic to assume that there will be some
multi-use trips within the site itself. Based on information published in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, it was estimated that 14 percent of the traffic generated by this multi-use
development represents internal trips during the weekday PM peak hour. Internal multi-use trips
will also exist in the AM peak hour, but with no data specific to that time period being presented
in the Trip Generation Handbook, a conservative approach was taken and no internal trip credit
was taken for the AM peak hour. The multi-use development trip generation worksheet is
provided in the Appendix. Table 2 summarizes the traffic volumes generated by the proposed
development including multi-use trip credits. All trip generation data is provided in the Appendix
as well
Table 2
Site Generated Vehicle Trips
Fowler Square Development
Office Drive-In Specialty Apts. Multi-Use New
Land Use Space Bank Retail (142 units) Total Trips Trips
(14kSF) (1.8kSF) (40.38kSF)
Enter 19 13 16 15 63 --- 63
AM Peak Hour Exit 3 9 17 58 87 --- 87
Total 22 22 33 73 150 --- 150
Enter 4 22 52 62 140 (20) 120
PM Peak Hour Exit 17 22 66 34 139 (19) 120
Total 21 44 118 96 279 (39) 240
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 9 %J P1
April 2013
The Trip Generation Handbook defines two major categories for trips, pass-by trips and non-
pass-by trips, which are broken down into primary trips and diverted link trips. Pass-by Trips
are those made by a driver enroute to a separate primary destination. They are trips that are
attracted from existing traffic passing the site on an adjacent roadway and are not diverted from
another roadway. Primary Trips are made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator.
The stop at the generator is the primary reason for the trip and the trips generally go from origin
to generator then return to the origin. Diverted Link Trips are trips attracted from the existing
traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator but require diversion from that
roadway to the roadway adjacent to the generator. These trips add traffic to the street adjacent to
the site, but may not add traffic to other travel routes. For the purposes of this study, it is felt that
diverted link trips would be insignificant and though there may be some pass-by trips, the
enclosed nature of the site would yield lower than typical pass-by percentages. To be
conservative, it was felt that pass-by trips would be minimal and that all trips to the site should
be considered new to the roadway network.
B. VEHICLE TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
Based on existing traffic patterns on the major corridors within the study area and the location of
the proposed development, it was estimated that 50% of the site-related traffic would exit and
travel south, 30% would exit and travel west, 10% would exit and travel north and 10% would
exit and travel east. 50% would enter from the south, 30% would enter from the west, 10%
would enter from the north and 10% would enter from the east. Based on these distributions 20%
of the site generated traffic is expected to travel through the Bay Road/Blind Rock Road
intersection.
Figure 5 illustrates the anticipated site trip distribution for the proposed development.
Vehicle trips associated with the proposed development were distributed to the roadway network
using the trip distribution percentages described above. These trip assignments are shown on
Figure 6. Based on the estimated trip distribution and trip generation, the Fowler Square project
is expected to add approximately 48 new trips to the Bay Road/Blind Rock Road intersection in
the PM peak hour, and 30 trips in the AM peak hour.
The distributed site trips were applied to 2018 No-Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes to develop
the 2018 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes shown in Figure 7. These traffic volumes represent
the anticipated traffic after construction of the proposed Fowler Square facility.
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 10 %J P1
April 2013
N
I--I
Z
N o0
�— S%
BLIND ROCK ROAD f— 10'0 i— 2% HAVILAND ROAD
30% 1) f► 2`Yo -- ♦ r►
_i I I 8%
a
rn
0
O
PROPOSED
PROJECT SITE
10%__!
50%
a
O
LEGEND
�— ENTER%
.4-- EXIT %
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
IN
CONSULTG ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP DISTRIBUTION
80
Wolf TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
SrtiSuite te300 00 NEW YORK JOB N0. SCALE, DATE: IF]GIJRE N0.
ALbany,NY12205 201300100 NO SCALE 4/2013 5
N
I--I
�MM
F+I
�-5(10)
BLIND ROCK ROAD 6(12) f- 1 (2) HAVILAND ROAD
19(36)
r 7(10)-0 t r
N
N
v7
PROPOSED
PROJECT SITE 9(12)
43(60)-�
b
N
M
LEGEND
AM PEAK HOUR
(PM PEAK HOUR)
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
IN
CONSULTG ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TRIP ASSIGNMENT
80
Wolf TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
SrtiSuite te300 Road NEW YORK JOB N0. SCALE, DATE: IF]GIJRE N0.
ALbany,NY12205 201300100 NO SCALE 4/2013 6
N
I--I
N N 4-- 26(54)
4 292(286) 4 117(120)
BLIND ROCK ROAD j—6(12) 1 � i— 34(38) HAVILAND ROAD
214(339)- 0 57(150)-+
19(36)-� 91 (138)- 0
75(63)-;�
N
N M M
m
N
N
M
PROPOSED 1
PROJECT SITE 9(lz)
43(60)-�
o ci
N -
M N
N
LEGEND
AM PEAK HOUR
(PM PEAK HOUR)
Greenman-Pedersen FOWLER'S SQUARE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
IN
CONSULTG ENGINEERS
GPI TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 2018 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
80
Wolf TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
SrtiSuite te300 Road NEW YORK JOB N0. SCALE, DATE: IF]GIJRE N0.
Albany,NY 12205 201300100 NO SCALE 4/2013 7
C. 2018 BUILD OPERATIONS
A capacity analysis for the 2018 future build condition was conducted for the study area
intersection of Bay Road & Blind Rock Road and the two site driveways to determine the
impacts of the Fowler Square development. The results of this analysis are described below and
summarized in Table 3.
• At the intersection of Bay Road and the site driveway, all movements are expected to
operate at LOS B or better during both the AM and PM peak hour under 2018 Build
Conditions.
• At the intersection of Blind Rock Road and the site driveway, all movements are
expected to operate at LOS B or better during the AM peak hour under 2018 Build
Conditions. In the PM peak hour, the driveway approach is expected to operate at LOS C
and all other movements are expected to operate at LOS A.
• At the intersection of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road, all approaches and individual
movements are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hour
under 2018 Build Conditions with the exception of the eastbound approach of Blind Rock
Road which may drop to a LOS E in the PM peak hour if no improvements are made.
The results of capacity analysis are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3
Level of Service Summar
2013 Existing 2018 No-Build 2018 Build
Intersection (No Improvements)
Approach/Movement AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak
Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
Bay Road and Blind Rock Road
Northbound A(8.8) B (10.4) A(8.9) B (10.6) A(8.9) B (10.8)
Southbound A(10.0) A(9.5) B (10.2) A(9.7) B (10.3) A(9.8)
Eastbound C(22.5) D (44.5) C(23.0) D (54.0) C(23.6) E(64.7)
Westbound C(22.0) C(22.6) C(21.3) C(23.2) C(21.5) C(23.9)
Overall B (14.5) C(21.1) B (14.7) C(23.8) B (15.0) C(26.9)
Bay Road and Driveway
Northbound Left-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. A(8.1) A(8.1)
Eastbound Right-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. B (10.6) B (10.5)
Eastbound Left-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. B (11.2) B (13.1)
Blind Rock Road and Driveway
Northbound Right/Left-Turn N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. B (12.6) C(15.1)
Westbound Left/Thm N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. A(0.2) A(0.5)
X(X.X)=Level of Service(Delay,seconds per vehicle)
N.A.=Not Applicable
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 14 %J P1
April 2013
D. OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS CONSIDERED
To address existing and forecasted delays on the eastbound Blind Rock Road approach, three
improvement options were considered, as was an alternative to make no improvement other that
timing adjustments at the existing traffic signal. These options include:
➢ Adjustment of signal timings at existing pre-timed signal.
➢ Option 1: Signal Improvements -Upgrade the traffic signal to provide full actuation as a
way to better allocate green time based on real time traffic demand.
➢ Option 2: Construct a left turn on Blind Rock Road-Widen the Blind Rock Road
approach to Bay Road to provide a 2 lane approach-a separate left turn lane and a single
lane for through and right turn movements.
➢ Option 3: Provide both the signal improvements and the left turn lanes.
Capacity Analyses were conducted using the 2018 Build Condition Volumes (see Figure 7)for
each of these options. The results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Comparison of Improvement O tions
2018 Build 2018 Build w/ 2018 Build w/ 2018 Build w/
TimingAd'. Only Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Approach/Movement Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour
Bay Road and Blind
Rock Road
Northbound B (15.4) C(20.0) A(6.9) B (14.7) A(8.9) B (10.8) A(6.6) B (10.3)
Southbound B (18.3) B (17.2) A(7.8) B (12.2) B (10.3) A(9.8) A(7.5) A(9.0)
Eastbound B (12.1) B (17.1) B (15.2) B (14.8) B (19.8) C(23.1) B (12.0) B (10.9)
Westbound B (11.3) B (12.1) B (12.6) B (10.0) C(21.5) C(23.4) B (13.5) B (11.6)
Overall B (14.9) B (17.3) B (10.1) B (13.4) B (14.1) B (15.9) A(9.4) B (10.4)
Bay Road and Driveway
Northbound Left-Turn A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1) A(8.1)
Eastbound Right-Turn B (10.5) B (10.4) B (10.7) B (10.5) B (10.6) B (10.5) B (10.7) B (10.5)
Eastbound Left-Turn B (11.2) B (13.1) B (11.2) B (13.1) B (11.2) B (13.1) B (11.2) B (13.1)
Blind Rock Road and
Driveway
Northbound B (12.6) C(15.1) B (12.6) B (15.1) B (12.6) C(15.1) B (12.6) C(15.1)
Westbound Left-Turn A(0.2) A(0.5) A(0.2) A(0.5) A(0.2) A(0.5) A(0.2) A(0.5)
The results indicate that either improvement option 1 (signal) or 2 (turn lane) will improve
operating conditions so that all approaches, including the eastbound approach, will operate at a
LOS C or better. With option 3 (new signal and turn lane), all approaches will operate at a LOS
B or better indicating significant reserve capacity. When comparing the results for options 1 and
2 it appears that upgrading the traffic signal would provide slightly better operations than
installing the left turn lane.
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 15 %J P1
April 2013
E. SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION
GPI utilized a radar spot speed study to determine current operating speeds along Bay Road and
Blind Rock Road in the vicinity of the proposed site driveways. The radar spot speed study
observes vehicles during off-peak periods traveling under free flow conditions (meaning that
motorists are able to choose the speed at which they are comfortable driving and are uninhibited
by other vehicles in front of them or the traffic signal which may influence travel speeds).
The speed data collection observed 25 vehicles in each direction along Bay Road and Blind Rock
Road and resulted in an average travel speed of 43.9-mph in the northbound direction and 45.3-
mph in the southbound direction along Bay Road and 40.4-mph in the eastbound direction and
38.5-mph in the westbound direction along Blind Rock Road. The 85th percentile operating speed
determined from the acquired data was 46-mph for the northbound direction and 48-mph in the
southbound direction along Bay Road and 43-mph in the eastbound direction and 40-mph in the
westbound direction along Blind Rock Road. Therefore, available sight distance at the proposed
driveways was evaluated and compared to that required for a design speed of 50-mph along Bay
Road and 45-mph along Blind Rock Road although the posted speed limit along Bay Road is 45-
mph and along Blind Rock Road is 40-mph. The speed data collected along Bay Road and Blind
Rock Road is provided in the appendix of this report.
Field reconnaissance indicated the available sight distance at the proposed Bay Road driveway
exceeded the recommended sight distance of 555 feet for an operating speed of 50-mph per
guidelines within A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, (AASHTO, 2004).
Additionally, the available sight distance at the Blind Rock Road driveway exceeded the
recommended sight distance of 500 feet for an operating speed 45-mph.
To ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic to and from the proposed site, it is recommended
that any proposed plantings, vegetation, landscaping, and signing along the site frontage be kept
low to the ground or set back sufficiently from the edge of the roadways so as not to inhibit the
available sight lines.
F. COORIDINATION WITH TOWN AND COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTS
During the preparation of this Study, GPI staff meet with the Warren County Department of
Public Works and the Queensbury Town Highway Superintendant to review the traffic analysis
and to solicit any concerns regarding the project. The following meetings were held:
• February 27, 2013 —Met with Warren County Department of Public Works
• March, 11, 2013 -Met with Queensbury Town Highway Superintendant
• March 15, 2013 —Met with Queensbury Town Highway Superintendent
Warren County indicated both Bay and Blind Rock Roads were County Roads and permits
would be required to construct the driveways as shown on the site plan. The County also
indicated the traffic signal that controls the intersection of Bay and Blind Rock Road is
maintained by the Town of Queensbury. Warren County did not have any objection to the
project and indicated their intention to issue the necessary driveway permits once Town
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 16 %J P1
April 2013
approvals are granted.
The meetings with the Town Highway Department focused on the current operation of the traffic
signal that controls the Bay and Blind Rock Road intersection. At the March 15th meeting at the
intersection, the timing of the current fixed time operation was modified to allocate the green
time in better balance with the current traffic flows. During this meeting it was confirmed that
the existing microwave vehicle detectors had malfunctioned and this was contributing to the
delays experienced at the intersection. It was indicated that the funds for installing new
detectors were in the Towns Highway budget and the equipment would be ordered and installed
when delivered.
G. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings
The results of the traffic analysis have indicated the following:
• Fowler Square will generate approximately 150 new trips in the AM peak hour and 222
trips in the PM peak hour.
• Approximately 20% of the new site generated trips will travel through the Bay
Road/Blind Rock Road intersection
• The eastbound Blind Rock Road approach to the Bay Road experienced the longest
delays at the intersection — forecasted to operate at a LOS D by 2018 without Fowler
Square and LOS E with Fowler Square.
• The additional traffic generated by Fowler Square will have a minimal impact to traffic
operations in the area.
• There is sufficient sight distance provided at each of the two main site driveway
locations.
• Upgrades to the timing and equipment at the existing traffic signal will mitigate the
additional traffic that the project will add to the Bay Road Blind Rock Road intersection.
Recommendations
The analysis shows the construction of the Fowler Square development will not result in any
significant traffic impacts. However, we offer the following recommendations to provide
adequate traffic flow:
• Provide one lane entering the project site and two lanes exiting at the Bay Road
driveway.
• Provide one lane entering and one lane exiting at the Blind Rock Road driveway.
• Provide stop sign control on both main driveway approaches to Bay Road and Blind
Rock Road.
• Any proposed plantings, vegetation, landscaping, and signing along the site frontage is
kept low to the ground or set back sufficiently from the edge of the roadways so as not to
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 17 %J P1
April 2013
inhibit the available sight lines.
• Modify the current fixed time operation at the existing traffic signal at the intersection of
Bay Road and Blind Rock Road to provide a better allocation of green time (This was
completed on March 15, 2013).
• Replace the malfunctioning microwave detectors at the traffic signal to provide a traffic
responsive operation (The Town has this equipment on order).
• Provide sufficient ROW along Blind Rock Road to allow for a future widening by others
to provide an additional approach lane to the intersection..
Many of these recommendations have already been incorporated on the preliminary site plan (see
Figure 2). With the implementation of these recommendations the traffic impacts of Fowler
Square will be mitigated, the adjacent roadway network will continue to operate safely and
efficiently and the calculated traffic operations under the 2018 Build Conditions will be better
than the 2013 Existing Conditions.
Fowler Square
AW
Traffic Impact Study 18 %J PI
April 2013
APPENDIX
TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA
TRIP-GENERATION CALCULATIONS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
SPEED DATA
.TR-AMC VOLUME DATA
nCom Ln NmM Ln ((7 M000O NNnNM r (n MCDn
p M U-) r- n O N u7 m O m N CO n0 V CO m N m C n N p
rrN (D NNNN 0O MNM CN ('7 co(14 N0 000 Cl)
C) C
U
o m 0000 07 00 00 ql U-)CT) CO Cn CO LOQ m(DV 00n Ul) Cn Cl) CONN
NM MCD C(7 V V V LO (D(Dn CON CD 00 (0(00 co NCl) a; p
Q
� 4
m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06 N
o (h O V 3 L MT Mme (N.i CD�rn niD(D� � CA V NrLO
Nm�N 400
O N 0 C7� r rr rrr NN� Nr
r a+ 0 ¢
m a ` C LL _
7 mn0O0 V Cnn0(D 0O V'Mn LO C7) LON000 Nm CO C)LO NCn
rrMr- rrNNn MM NNti MMNNN co pM(n p
� V r m
0O0NNN rMinNr nnMm(D CDO(D mr 0N � (D000
(� 01 r r i'7 r r r r f 7 N M N p M V N N M N d:C, N p
m o Z MM (ter
z C) a' - _ —
D 'rr C) (1) mCn cor 0O CnnMrN mLO I- W)(D m CP NCD 0O
COCONMMr MV U)(Dm rCDrnm MCnn U-) N CON0) p
CO CO
LL CL r r Cl) i0 0 N O Cn
d
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0(D p
41
� a
J � � L V CD M(h CO n p(DnM SCO CD � 'V X00 (DN 4 M M�� � cn
N
11�^ o r r r r
I� @ r r m
W) m m V V OD LO CO n(D N n N O Cn r m LO m It 0 Cn M u7
rr(0 Nr MMO nu7nvN nn V VM Ln (Dti Ln Cn p
N � r r N N CD (D m
M N = r
v LOC) 0000 00 n (Dm0 MM LO LO (D CnNV p 0 V Mm(DrV
a) r rM rrr(D NNNr0O rr rru7 MN NC7j (3
0 N N N m
-ffi MV Mnn co CD00nm N V u7 N Nm
r N MNCDmT
M N m M coM coM V Ln (n V Lo V CT V V V 7,n (D 00
Q
(n0000p p0000 ppoop ppoop oppoopo
° o IL
00 � 0
bjy] Nru7N0 (Dnv�l'1N TNNCO � V (D0 ((7� N (DNN 000
� E r ai cri r
c° 0
iw 'm U-
2 2 (n Mm N V n N V n N CO (D r CO M 00 0 n CO Y t(D(D
N N r n N N N M O N N co N r r N N M 0 CO cV 0 00 00
F (D r m
crf NN V)(Dm V 0n0 V 0r- I- w 00m0w Nw m m n Mn
w r r M r r M r r N r r N O m N
CDM Oro m000m 0n (0n0 NNCn 00n (D Mm V I-CD
� (D 000N nm 00mM mm� ncq Mn CD(DN co "co Nm p
CL r
Q
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"6
0
s a
(Q _
0 0 CO(D N00 V CO 0O Mm 00 0u7n Cl) V rm Mn N mOrn —M
aZ t rNMco NNNN0 NMNNO NNr (N 00 00 C; oO CT O
{) (a E co
LM M m
LL
(y) 2 CO 00 NCD V n (DM00 'Ir 0LO rMm CONmr CO LO M 0M
N V (n00 "t M LO d'0 V Cnvvn V'V co V(D MmmN41 0
L Nn Lo r n 41
c6 CV ~ r ti f-
S -It LO [OnN ;r (OVMn mN0n0) Nmn VN M M 00 CDL U N - M r co { m coM T 0
L
U E
m Oen c3 u-)� 0 (200 � (D LO 01.1� OL,20Cn � yo\ N N N N
�. 4r M� Or(?� x prM V V O O� �
i O E nr� r�n 00mCDCo « CO(D(0(D cLi m > >� S
L Z (D Z � p00CD 0000 ¢ rrr rrr �0<< o
U C D_
m
(� (D Q3
O ) m
Cn U 0 t
-O
co
0
U
O
w
C
En—
o (Y') C)o (Y') a
C:) N_
O O �
tY] N Il— N
N N N
O
Z U (-) Z avian oa
tf N Out In Total
N645 625
12 17
LL U) co 0- 6 9 15
651 621 1272
122 3811 109 0
0 6 3 0
122 387 112 0
U Right Thru Lett Peds
4
0
yo4)
M N rian 000ro 0
Mti Y F n n �
W Y ~ p V cV d d ry N
V � fid' rv� ain L .
E r N c
N p —
��O// r N f0 M 2 Z ` ('Y r r
N N
J 5
Q C Oo Q r .0 n� Q Z �N N �p0
� Q
LL
�
I6o
-I 1 1460 spad
LOz
Z6£ £zz z 0 0
£ oss £zz zo
4£6L 9$6 666
❑� z a
CZ6L ££6 l.66
lelo 1 ul lno
Peon oo Pugg
LO
C)
� r
� HY
c�
U
L)
N
cn c° 0
ro _
O o oN ° knm 000
N N N N 00 00
ry F
C
U
O ro ao co 00 Ln rn cn
[if o vvv wlrn rn
C q
[Yl vl 0000000
0 a) o
o N a
m
o t�7 u � N`nr� onNrn
O N o f a Cn
T-
ae �
,
MmeN= -0 LL
m N ti C�7 00 L rrNCD
N°n0 �LO
. . . . . . . . F- r'ln
E cn r r2 N2 L6 LO
M 0 J r N�
(ll rnLf)M CO
7/0 .. o c7 u7
LL iD 6i
vJ covJ � °Q
CL
Q
Ul 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
"0 (D
a) O
L d
a
u 0
NnO (OnO NO
� cn n
ISIca
E
2 to M Lo
m o
w ll.
L NrCl) C.70" n
LO F r`o n
r� M N
1� v mr co w CD� .
to O oo
�[ Jcon
7 '
'Ci rn o
0coaonrn 0
MII �' F
o m tr
� Z �o a
�.I a
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o ° a
c Q o N
w' ottf L eonvLnvro
AWS c E rn N �+ �
W o a
L
m LL
Z 2 vrnNvv�,
L NNN '`"acrir
O r U-) U-)
r r f7 n
J n
iq m00 001 N
O n Woo m 7
F f`7 Ol
0.
Q r
(h 000 O 00 O
r CJ
CD
m
0i [6 00 0o m 0 a0 0)
Q'z � � � NNTV NO_ ch
� W r N
E ( ) 7 �m rel wv
n wcNr
r- L O C V In Lo V O Q
' 0 z, N (0 m
NLO
m
..� i �..' N V V r-,.
00 Q7
2 C lf7
L LL
N
U E m 2 �, 5 W 0 X10 Lo o
i a EQ oa00000co 3�a
Z00000
Z 3 > > ci
ted .M cll cll __ Q
O (DO m-be
U) U O baa
({3 OON N7 Cl)
Q N(D.- 0 0) Cl)
M D M Nm
M r Q)
ry
S C
U
0 R (D u')a)(D(D ao
S ti (D op co(n M
F-
7C) u
a
m w o000000
C6 m a �
7C) T- o .�
� Y d
O M p u (OTr»a0r~rn
ry O N p
o QC
M CD c u.
L� a N MNM vm w
U p
r i~--rn rn OD T)L L CA CA F-
(0
°- r M m
a
ro 0000000
m O
r a
!y ° Q to T co n co co
E r co
�1 O
w f LL
2NF- O0 ;1- co C)
r-(D C6 co
O LO N co
N N
CNI
(~D
W eYj m un Y N M i- O
(c �, rCO
a m tr
z W n
�i 0 Q
a
c � OCD CD o 0000
C o 6 D-
00
Q '� •�
0
ro
LU
LO '600
E N
[16m LL
V
(paOMMrt!)
r f�
J ~ ~ - O C')
N W
CO r-- N N F- (D
w r-0 rn
rco
a
_r
to D 0000000
co
iaLO Hari- (Deo
{Y Z N N N N N O Q)
�+ Ems.
Ln o N
rn LL r
Eom
L �, a� avdNrN-((Dn�
w o moMM
i- YvN
L L U J LL C r N n
cr
U n E mTL;0T)0 � Q�LL
}, C MaOr E z
L O 1- Qw� (0Yl :1
Ll - -
a� z Z 0
� :3 >
N Lm-�d
U? U O a a
Thomas Melander
Traffic Engineering Technician
1346 Lawn Avenue
Schenectady,New York
Tetephone—518-466-0741
DATE: July 25, 2011
SUBJECT: BAY ROAD, SOUTH OF BLIND ROCK ROAD,TRAFFIC STATISTICS
Traffic statistics for Bay Road, 600 feet south of Blind Rock Road, Queensbury, New York
from July 14 through July 22, 2011, using traffic counter MC-5 are tabulated below:
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 45
Average Speed -42
85th Percentile Speed-47
10 mph Speed Range-38 to 48 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range-74%
Total Vehicles Counted—61,231 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume = 7,698 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume - 8,174 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 47,926 78%
Motorcycles 761 1%
PickupsNans/SUV 11,949 20%
Buses 95 0%
Trucks 275 0%
Tractor-trailers 225 0%
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
12 AM - 1 AM 38 43 34 25 35 34 37 59
1 AM - 2 AM 21 30 14 16 18 24 23 21
2 AM - 3 AM 14 14 10 16 11 12 24 14
3 AM - 4 AM 13 10 13 8 9 10 23 16
4 AM - 5 AM 21 14 21 19 24 25 29 13
5 AM - 6 AM 57 29 65 82 67 68 56 35
6 AM - 7 AM 137 76 165 157 167 162 160 71
7 AM - 8 AM 292 126 327 360 352 359 336 187
8 AM - Y 9 AM 421 262 443 479 476 504 502 283
r 9 AM - r10 AM 484 369 491 539 508 513 510 455
F 10 AM - r11 AM 544 437 539 534 599 564 573 563
11 AM - "12 PM 579 504 553 577 560 592 657 613
r 12 PM - 1 PM 601 490 622 615 575 647 685 574
r 1 PM - 2 PM 576 489 669 570 553 627 620 506
r 2 PM - 3 PM 548 428 587 565 559 611 645 444
r 3 PM - 4 PM 596 440 698 621 661 615 628 506
r 4 PM - r 5 PM 607 450 665 653 640 649 727 465
Y 5 PM - 6 PM 552 440 535 589 579 646 612 461
6 PM - 7 PM 466 466 441 423 466 515 498 456
r 7 PM - r 8 PM 383 350 387 407 355 392 442 349
" 8 PM - " 9 PM 323 288 320 349 315 332 329 326
9 PM -'10 PM 224 206 193 196 245 214 278 233
Y 10 PM - '11 PM 124 90 108 106 96 151 148 169
Y 11 PM - �12 AM 76 63 61 81 54 88 103 84
7,698 - AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC VOLUME
2
Bay Road
All Traffic
30000 , _... 2-GZ5G _ . ..
c
25000 — .
20000 /'
2 1425814362
UL 15000 „W�m .......
f
cs 10000 _ 1111%i% %
5000 2839 °"���� 2679
25 70 57 337 316 50
0 .�.�.._�
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41,45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
Vehicle Speeds
Bay Road
Traffic Speeds
90 _ — ...., .......... ..................................._ ____ .. ......
80
70
ON" � hw��������
60 s ......._......
50 _...
mfuiuiui�i"�o n n n��nomo��umod�'°uumy��tiu���Murviui�uDDu !iN4�N�M1Wwuwwim woauwruipll!��yrca!vimm�o�wur
v�um�u���uv�mp!mam�w+ww!�mwiWu��W�iiUr�;vm9"P��uHw�iirv�rv�yp�mo 0 0 owiuma�mP�rrstwmo���ub�nunn�u *- pnvkwhomN�+ru�oWhom Ow"
�VV�1Vull�WUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum�i�uum�� imOmim ➢�DP��uumiiuuuuumpwu�umNuuiWi4ull!�Vww, Q,�,� ,
40
.... , .... _ V . ................ ...............
30 AM AM AM AM AM f AM�AM AM AM 1 AM AM AM PM PM PM i PM PM�f PM PM PM�PM PM�PM�PM
, , �I
j12 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 i 0 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 �i 7 8 9 10 11
Averag,e Speedolgomm,,851h Speed Maximum Speed
3
Bay Road,Northbound Traffic
600 feet south of Blind Rocic Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 45
Average Speed- 42
85th Percentile Speed -46
10 mph Speed Range - 36 to 46 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range - 73%
Total Vehicles Counted—30,838 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,870 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume- 4,143 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 24,186 78%
Motorcycles 338 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 6,220 20%
Buses 41 0%
Trucks 146 0%
Tractor-trailers 108 0%
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Northbound Traffic
July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
12 AM - " 1 AM 20 23 14 16 21 20 18 31
r 1 AM - 2 AM 12 19 7 9 12 17 10 13
r 2 A - 3 A 8 8 3 6 5 8 17 8
r 3 A - 4 A 4 3 3 3 3 2 8 8
r 4 A - p 5 A 6 8 5 2 4 7 12 5
r 5 AM - p. 6 AM 18 11 22 29 20 17 15 15
6 AM - 7 AM 51 42 59 49 59 59 60 30
7 AM - 8 AM 100 51 99 111 113 120 119 90
8 AM - ° 9 AM 173 132 172 188 184 193 204 140
9 AM - `10 AM 223 194 215 256 228 244 226 201
10 AM - `l l AM 258 203 241 240 297 270 277 275
11 AM - `12 PM 289 238 258 308 286 317 335 284
12 PM - 1 PM 314 243 295 334 317 327 375 304
1 PM - 2 PM 297 253 338 289 285 325 322 270
2 PM - 3 PM 284 204 277 297 316 338 340 219
r 3 PM4 PM 320 219 360 360 383 318 343 257
4 PM - y 5 PM 335 203 393 369 359 375 386 263
5 PM - 6 PM 306 188 325 347 359 363 338 224
IF 6 PM - 7 PM 242 194 258 218 264 262 264 236
F 7 PM - 8 PM 209 164 227 233 195 234 236 176
8 PM 9 PM 173 137 162 199 155 195 197 163
9 PM - X10 PM 120 96 121 108 132 113 143 125
10 PM - "11 PM 60 39 60 54 54 57 76 83
11 PM - r12 AM 44 34 35 51 26 53 60 47
3,870 - AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC VOLUME
4
Bay Road
Northbound Traffic
14000 1130'34_ _
12000 „,,,,,, ..
�__� .. _ .... ,.. _... ..... 0
10000 --- 6 3rr
_ �...m
$000 _....._ _ ...
u” 6000 5621
.,,,,. ........
w,
�<
4000 ...... . .. ........ .
t 2155
._ 857
2000 5 _. 21 37 2 � �, , 104_ 15
0
,,,. ��.
_.. w�... ...„, ..
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
Vehicle Speeds
Bay Road
Northbound Traffic Speeds
90
80
70 .......... ......... _...._._. . ....
60
uuuuuwMMUwuuww�'�
uuuR�m��wo
—,,,,
........... _,. .. ,....... �...... ®®.....,
iuruuwiuVono� r ���
uem �'^,w iay,�:�"mwuti'� i�mvirSx�mr��mm�mi�rtm
ww� !�^�www�nriiuiu!�wwwowruwvwwwwrmirrtrrtwwwwmuomwum, iw'wtw�rw+�xro�iuwrwwaawa�^dw+w��m,�w'ww"ywa'� imwwu�ww.awe,�y;r��; uwri,'uwsmwa�mwiwuwwww�wW�"�`
4WWUN��wIllwwwwN0l�fwIVIUIwwW!WNNINwwIII�IIIIINIwllll �IIIIIIIONI0110110110111
40 ®...... wuuwwwpwww� � .w iuu wmw
30
Am AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM�PMIPM�PM PM�PMPM PM1PM�PM
12 ii 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1! 12 1 2 j 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
° �AveracgeSpeed j-851h Speed Ilk—Maximum Speed
5
Bay Road, Southbound Traffic
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 45
Average Speed - 43
85th Percentile Speed-48
10 mph Speed Range-38 to 48 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range- 76%
Total Vehicles Counted—30,838 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,828 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-4,031 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 23,885 79%
Motorcycles 429 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 5,774 19%
Buses 55 0%
Trucks 131 0%
Tractor-trailers 119 0%
Bay Road
600 feet south of Blind Rock Road
Southbound Traffic
July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
12 AM - 1 AM 18 20 20 9 14 14 19 28
1 AM - 2 AM 8 11 7 7 6 7 13 8
2 A - 3 A 7 6 7 10 6 4 7 6
3AM - 4 A 8 7 10 5 6 8 15 8
4 AM - 5 AM 15 6 16 17 20 18 17 8
' 5 AM -. 6 AM 39 18 43 53 47 51 41 20
6 AM - " 7 AM 86 34 106 108 108 103 100 41
7 AM - m 8 AM 192 75 228 249 239 239 217 97
8 AM -" 9 AM 248 130 271 291 292 311 298 143
r 9 AM - '10 AM 260 175 276 283 280 269 284 254
10 AM - '11 AM 287 234 298 294 302 294 296 288
11 AM - '12 PM 290 266 295 269 274 275 322 329
12 PM - 1 PM 288 247 327 281 258 320 310 270
1 PM - 2 PM 279 236 331 281 268 302 298 236
r 2 PM - 3 PM 264 224 310 268 243 273 305 225
3 PM - 4 PM 276 221 338 261 278 297 285 249
r 4 PM - " 5 PM 272 247 272 284 281 274 341 202
5 PM - 6 PM 245 252 210 242 220 283 274 237
6 PM - 7 PM 224 272 183 205 202 253 234 220
r 7 PM - 8 PM 174 186 160 174 160 158 206 173
8 PM - 9 PM 150 151 158 150 160 137 132 163
' 9 PM '10 PM 104 110 72 88 113 101 135 108
' 10 PM - '11 PM 64 51 48 52 42 94 72 86
11 PM - '12 AM 33 29 26 30 28 35 43 37
3,828 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
6
Bay Road
Southbound Traffic
14000 ........ .. 13216.. ......
�+
r
� 12000 - -----
10000 ...... /�. .-874 .
8000
LL 6000 5565.
_......
4000 ®.....
1822
> 2000 20, 49 20 48 654 ///� „ „ J 21.2 35
0 .� ���� _���m _.......
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41A5 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
Vehicle Speeds
Bay Road
Southbound Traffic Speeds
90 _.. ..... .. ......... ................. --
80 _,,,,,,, .......................................... ...., .,..,.........................................................
_e
muuuuuuuuw =1
60 .......... .... _...— aim.
_. noumm ' 00,
NMI"
50 �mi�uuNeoaw�Wwru�e� asii«,wi��� u -,.
'��'!'�^DP'MJVIII!fNkryry lolN01JNP���U��� PIMOOOmWV 1U1W;W1WiH�Wyy��gIIVIVpNyuIpJ4GNrW'��IMIVIIVNNIUI�PN1!V�iNl�fdfd WiOIJtlIM NWNNMUILA'UYIOfMW4WV:N9 NNNIIVI\N lid@�N'NAIDHHH lluuu)gfFfRf�Whlfl �!�QpNf�f6ffuf6f�fhff�IVIVOVd�WViM1�;�yy����� q�„g;�pp;9jry0N�'IIIARNy�INIaN
� � mummmWNVwwu,W,y�;;,�wiWuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum�p�uuuuuul�VMW�pWN.... .. � �llUUUU�D�fiwuuummuulmWONWwNuwwu�,�uuomOUNiu"�OM�mm�m� -
40 ............
30AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM`ANI a PM I PM�PM fi PM PM p PM PM i PM 4'M„ t
PM PM PM
12 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 � 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ;11
Average Speed 1111111 1"w'85th Speed muOm"Maximum Speed
7
Thomas Melander
Traffic Engineering Technician
1346 Lawn Avenue
Schenectady,New York
Telephone—518-466-0741
DATE: July 25, 2011
SUBJECT: BLFND ROCK ROAD,EAST OF BAY ROAD,TRAFFIC STATISTICS
Traffic statistics for Blind Rock Road, 200 feet west of Bay Road, Queensbury, New York
from July 14 through July 22, 2011, using traffic counter MCA are tabulated below:
Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
Posted Speed Limit-Speed Limit 40
Averagc Speed -28
85th Percentile Speed- 33
10 mph Speed Range-23 to 33 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range- 65%
Total Vehicles Counted—51,983 Vehicles
Average Daily Trak Volume=6,560 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-7,012 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 42,384 82%
Motorcycles 653 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 8,358 16%
Buses 92 0%
Trucks 323 1%
Tractor-trailers 173 0%
Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
12 AM - 1 AM 40 61 33 28 29 51 30 50
r 1 AM - 2 AM 29 53 18 22 29 23 24 33
r 2 AM - r 3 AM 10 6 6 7 9 7 25 12
r 3A - 4A 8 11 9 3 5 7 16 8
r 4 AM - ` 5 AM 21 14 21 23 24 20 26 19
r 5 AM - 6 AM 50 25 53 72 59 60 44 37
r 6 AM - r 7 AM 127 49 149 173 166 149 135 71
r 7 AM - 8 AM 289 118 340 338 363 368 314 184
r 8 AM - r 9 AM 408 231 415 504 465 510 441 287
9 AM - '10 AM 421 341 420 494 418 463 419 394
10 AM -"11 AM 447 376 404 477 491 481 457 440
11 AM - '12 PM 481 428 400 482 519 529 499 509
12 PM - r 1 PM 473 379 480 527 486 515 501 421
1 PM - r 2 PM 451 397 468 476 474 494 473 376
2 PM - 3 PM 461 363 453 478 499 516 526 390
r 3 PM - r 4 PM 488 329 537 540 536 524 536 414
r 4 PM - ` 5 PM 495 331 504 549 558 580 549 392
r 5 PM - a 6 PM 477 356 475 547 523 602 503 333
6 PM - � 7 PM 386 346 400 381 383 443 413 333
7 PM - r 8 PM 306 290 267 324 270 363 354 276
8 PM - �v 9 PM 294 285 283 317 318 302 272 281
r 9 PM - '10 PM. 196 148 192 178 218 211 189 237
r 10 PM - r11 PM 124 81 92 106 114 161 130 181
r 11 PM - '12 AM 78 57 51 65 85 72 113 102
6,560 - AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC VOLUME
2
Blind Rock Road
All Traffic
20000 _ 1s2 ... .............
18000 Y, ...........
c 16000 14540
II
14000 j
12000
°'
10000 _.. _.............. %,� ..
8000
6000 ............ % %/
37T6 �� %////// 3717
m 4000
t40 ��
2000 .. 339. ,.,. _. 691- 101-
6 �YYn,�r,. V,,,,, „ ,,,,, ......
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
Vehicle Speeds
Blind Rock Road
Traffic Speeds
65 , ...., ......... ......... ......... ..........
60
55 ..... .................. _ — — ., ..
m�
50 —..... :®, miuo� ..... ..
imuuuuummwopuuur[mir� ���io�°m�°
fir. .. ._.— .... ....... ..... .... _........
40 ......................................................... ......................................... .... ......................
'SWY+'UVII(WIkYrNW@YVPUY,';NYUW�rvM"I"NIW11UVltli4i(9�(1M1NUllIM1WllI��V��,
,..,,, � ,,,,,.. ».,,,,®.., ,U��IV` uUOIINNW',4'�,df.
35 _ — �,mr� itimti�mmmomuumurviiww�wwwwwwy�,�,n;lai umw�imimimimimimimimimimimuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmur�AYUH„um�imuwtiu�nimmuw�u�umu�wuvuvun�u�;mmm�ii�mua�
(Iuiuuuuuu!wiu�DV➢uwlmiw�u�,,�
�u�uiuiWuuuuuuuuuumu'uu���uu
25 —............................ .... ...................... ..................
20 _.. ..,_ �__ , �_ _
AM f AM AM AM ) AM'ANt AM�AN1 AM AM AM'PM PM PM PNU PM PM PM PM'PM PM PM I PM
12 � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 1+0 11 j 12� 1 �i 2 3 4 �� 5 6 7 6 9 10 11
µA�eeage Speed 1°"11N11�"°IwO85th Speed —°°°°°'m*Maximum Speed
3
Blind Rock Road,Eastbound Traffic
200 feet west of Bay Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 40
Average Speed-26
85th Percentile Speed-33
10 mph Speed Range-21 to 31 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range- 53%
Total Vehicles Counted—25,160 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,173 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume-3,393 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 20,352 81%
Motorcycles 285 1%
PickupsNans/SUV 4,148 17%
Buses 44 0%
Trucks 20 0%
Tractor-trailers 131 1%
Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
Eastbound Traffic
May 26-June 2,2007
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT
r 12 AM - 1 AM 29 46 27 22 15 36 20 36
r 1 AM - r 2 AM 21 43 16 15 17 12 17 28
2 AM 3 AM 7 4 4 5 8 1 21 4
r 3 AM - P 4 AM 5 10 4 1 1 4 10 3
4 A 5 A 12 8 9 14 16 11 16 9
r 5 AM - . 6 AM 22 10 25 29 25 24 21 20
r 6 AM - ' 7 AM 56 19 65 78 74 68 59 27
7 AM - ' 8 AM 119 45 149 148 146 157 121 65
8 AM - 9 AM 162 85 172 202 176 216 181 99
9 AM - r10 AM 168 134 153 183 176 187 170 172
10 AM - r11 AM 195 160 171 221 220 205 200 185
11 AM - r12 PM 206 177 163 214 232 229 211 216
r 12 PM - 1 PM 221 190 221 238 230 227 239 205
r 1 PM - 2 PM 220 175 220 244 223 263 229 187
r 2 PM - 3 PM 228 173 216 251 248 251 260 196
r 3 PM - r 4 PM 242 161 261 266 266 251 258 231
4 PM - r 5 PM 255 144 269 294 303 304 277 194
r 5 PM - r 6 PM 248 186 244 268 283 310 273 175
' 6 PM - r 7 PM 199 187 208 190 206 226 204 172
r 7 PM - r 8 PM 160 172 140 175 131 182 176 143
r 8 PM - a 9 PM 160 148 154 177 178 165 158 137
r 9 PM - 'lo PM 112 83 116 113 119 117 107 131
r 10 PM - r11 PM 79 48 58 74 78 108 84 100
r 11 PM - r12 AM 49 38 34 41 55 41 72 65
3,173 - AVERAGE DAILYTRAFFIC VOLUME
4
Blind Rock Road
Eastbound Traffic
8000 _ 70113. .
7000
6000 �% 4838
rr 5000 ,,, _ . .__
1,,,,,,,,,,,, gg
U` 4000 —34.56
3000 „% ,,, %�� _
2000137-9 16
1000 306 mv
�� �// X17
21
I °
0 73ts
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 4145 46-50 51-55
Vehicle Speeds
Blind Rock Road
Eastbound Traffic Speeds
65
60 _.... .......... .........
55 pul1W
50 w
00
45 5 ..................
40 uiwryuiin� ....... ..... ............
anmm�„umi„u„u„i„i„im�naeiviurvrwUm�
35 i....................................................................... ..�wino!';�'me?iwJuuw�wiauJn4�no4mnwl�iu�w ,,,,,,,., ,,,,..—
. ,,,,,, ,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, . ..., ,
,
iC% � �IG,�r����WVUNnmlooumlol�ol�ololffl M9wIV1YIvwIR9YInDi�loImWOVIWiJVIVIUIY,;�I�Vy)INo�rcFfgyq�m�lf��pmWu�ululuN�m�f�ul��'K'OMJ uoV�4 lffl `�Rrtm�Mdf�ffww(
30 .. ...
.. .........
255 ._. ........ ............, _....,
��uwuuuotw5w�,p
AM AM AM�AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM 7IPM M t'M RM PM PM PM RM p 1111 PM PM
12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 ? u 3 4 5 6 7 B f 9 10 ti l
Average Speed m 85th Speed —Maximum Speed
5
Blind Rock Road, Westbound Traffic
200 feet west of Bay Road
Posted Speed Limit- Speed Limit 40
Average Speed- 30
85th Percentile Speed-34
10 mph Speed Range- 25 to 35 mph
Percentage within 10 mph Speed Range- 53%
Total Vehicles Counted—26,823 Vehicles
Average Daily Traffic Volume=3,386 Vehicles per day
Average Weekday Traffic Volume- 3,619 Vehicles per day
Vehicle Type Quantity Percentage
Cars 22,032352 82%
Motorcycles 368 1%
Pickups/Vans/SUV 4,210 16%
Buses 48 0%
Trucks 123 0%
Tractor-trailers 42 0%
Blind Rock Road
200 feet west of Bay Road
Westbound Traffic
July 14-July 21,2011
AVERAGE
TRAFFIC
VOLUME SUN MON TUE WED THU FRi SAT
12 AM - 1 AM 11 15 6 6 14 15 10 14
1 AM - „ 2 AM 8 10 2 7 12 11 7 5
2 AM - 3 AM 4 2 2 2 1 6 4 8
3 A - N 4 A 4 1 5 2 4 3 6 5
4 AM - 5 AM 9 6 12 9 8 9 10 10
5 AM - �N 6 AM 28 15 28 43 34 36 23 17
6 AM - 7 AM 72 30 84 95 92 81 76 44
w 7 AM - 8 AM 171 73 191 190 217 211 193 119
v 8 AM - w, 9 AM 246 146 243 302 289 294 260 188
9 AM - "'10 AM 253 207 267 311 242 276 249 222
10 AM - "11 AM 252 216 233 256 271 276 257 255
11 AM - "12 PM 275 251 237 268 287 300 288 293
12 PM - 1 PM 251 189 259 289 256 288 262 216
1 PM - 2 PM 231 222 248 232 251 231 244 189
2 PM - 3 PM 233 190 237 227 251 265 266 194
3 PM - µ 4 PM 246 168 276 274 270 273 278 183
4 PM - 5 PM 240 187 235 255 255 276 272 198
5 PM - 6 PM 229 170 231 279 240 292 230 158
6 PM - 7 PM 187 159 192 191 177 217 209 161
" 7 PM - 8 PM 146 118 127 149 139 181 178 133
8 PM - 9 PM 134 137 129 140 140 137 114 144
9 PM - '10 PM 84 65 76 65 99 94 82 106
10 PM - "11 PM 45 33 34 32 36 53 46 81
11 PM - '12 AM 28 19 17 24 30 31 41 37
3,386 - AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
6
Blind Rock Road
Westbound Traffic
12000 ... ..�.... ... ....... —11329
%/�°....�.. 9707
10000
C
„
8000 ii/''
... .., ... ,,,,,,
Li 6000
LD
v 4000 -2952
6
20 4
2000 1.... 33.. 111 iiiii X73
32tY
�' 28 5
i
�_.
0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55
Vehicle Speeds
Blind Rock Road
Westbound Traffic Speeds
55 ............ ........ — ..... — _...
gokq
50 —.....—
45
40
35 �;Nw _ _.... .�.._.. _. ....�........
wuumiWwtiioioii iu�r�ryw V,llumimuoimi�uiuuuiuiu��������uwHamioioi����ybS,�SbSr^��u'uu!�wwruiam�u;�➢7�muwiuwau�wu�uiuuuuMq&”��iui�'�uiWWioioioiouooimow�wo�!NWwwou�ui!wf(�ODNm!m!omb!Miomi�vmu��
30 WNNm NVuuuuu �llmuuiNm°i� �� — ��pI01M0101�RNdDIDiTiummm�u R �i uumWuuum� VioiW uuuuummm w ._
25 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
20 ® —.. �. i. _® _M.
AM AM AMAM AM AMAM AM M AM AM PM i(PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PMPMPM
12 1 2 3 4 , 5 6 7 8 �AM
9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11
uemgeSpeed —1185th Speed Maximum Speed
7
TRIP-GENERATION CALCULATIONS
Office Space
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code (710) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
14,000 SF 19 3 22 4 17 21
Drive-in Bank
Adjacent Street Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code (912) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
1,800 SF 13 9 22 22 22 44
Specialty Retail
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code (826) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Eater Exit Total
40,380 SF 16 17 33 52 66 118
Apartments
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Code (220) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Enter Exit Total Eater Exit Total
142 Units 15 58 73 62 34 96
Total 63 87 150 140 139 279
2011037.00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
1000's SF AM -PM
General Office Building 710 14.0
Trip Generation Summary
Avg Rale 1.58 1.49 Land Use 1 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code 710 Entar Exil Total Enter Eml I Tolal
14,000 SF 1 1131 31 221 41 171 21
Total Trips AMI PM 22 21
AM Enlerin 88% 19
AM Exiting 12% 3
PM Enlerin 17% 4
PM Exiting 83% 17
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. 4/9/2013 Page 1
2011037.00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
1000's SF AM PM
Drive-in Bank 912 1.800
Adfacent Slreet
Avg Rate 12.06 24.30
Adacenl Slreet Trip Generation Summary
Land Use AM Peak Hou' PM Peak Hour
Totat Trips AMI PM 22 44 Cvde 912 Enter Exll Totai Enter Exii Tolal
1,aOOSF 13 9 22 22 22 44
AM Entering 57% 13
AM Edli 43% 9
PMEnteri 50% 22
PM Exiting 50% 22
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc. 41912013 Pago 1
201 1 032 00 FowWs Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
1000's SF AM PM
Specialty Retail Center 626 40.4
Adiacenl Street Trip Generation Summary
Avg Rate 2.71 Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Trips PM =2.4X+21.46 118 Code 826 Enter Exit Total Enter lExil Total
Ration AMIPM Shopping Center 0.276 40,3301 161 171 331 521 66 118
Toiai Trips AM 33
AM Entenn 48% 16
AM Exiting 52% 17
PM Entoring 44% 52
PM Exiting 56% 66
Greenman-Pedersen,tnc, 41912013 Page 1
2011037 00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Trip Generation Data for Proposed Development
#of Units AM PM
Apartment 220 142
Adjacent Slreel
Avg Rale 0.51 0.62
Trip Generation Summary
Total Trips AM=0.49X+3.73 73 Land UseAM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Total Trips PPA=0.55X+-17.65 96 Coda 220 Enter I Exit ITotal Enter Exlt Total
142 Units 45 56 73 62 34 96
AM Entering 20% 15
AM Exiling 80% 58
PM Entering. 65% 62
PM Exiting 35% 34
Greenman-Pedersen,Inc, 41912013 Paga 1
CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2013 AM Peak Hour Existing Conditions
_
R . WB
a!errt t tb
JB1 EBL _ 7 ._" Vu�f Mt. N ::
' sBR
Lane Configurations
Volume(vph) 52 80 71 32 106 24 61 110 31 28 208 110
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0,95 0.98 1,00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0,99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prof) 1780 1810 1805 1812 1805 1790
Flt Permitted 0.88 0.90 0.54 1.00 0.65 1.00
Satd,Flow(perm) 1587 1641 1017 1812 1230 1790
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0,94
Adj. Flow(vph) 57 88 78 38 125 28 75 136 38 30 221 117
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 29 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 223 0 0 191 0 75 159 0 30 309 0
Heavy Vehicles{°/4) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time (s) 6.0 6,0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 473 489 531 946 642 935
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.17
v/s Ratio Perm c0.14 0.12 0.07 0.02
v/e Ratio 0.47 0.39 0.14 0.17 0.05 0.33
Uniform Delay,d1 19.2 18.7 8.3 8.4 7.8 9.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.3 2.3 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.9
Delay(s) 22.5 21.0 8.8 8.8 8.0 10.2
Level of Service C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 22.5 21.0 8.8 10.0
Approach LOS C C A B
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.9% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2013 PM Peak Hour Existing Conditions
_
iovemet I, EBR W13 _1T: NBR` P6J NBR SBL,; lT S,BR
Lane Configurations +
Volume(vph) 141 121 60 35 105 51 68 269 54 39 175 99
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(Prot) 1806 1786 1805 1828 1805 1786
Flt Permitted 0.75 0.88 0.58 1.00 0.50 1.00
Satd, Flow(perm) 1382 1592 1100 1828 944 1786
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 158 136 67 41 124 60 80 316 64 41 186 105
RTOR Reduction (yph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 361 0 0 225 0 80 369 0 41 260 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA- Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) .6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 412 475 574 954 493 932
v/-s Ratio Prot c0.20 0.15
v/s Ratio Perm c0.26 0.14 0.07 0.04
v/c Ratio' 0.88 0.47 0.14 0.39 0.08 0.28
Uniform Delay,d1 22.3 19.2 8.2 9.6 8.0 8.9
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 22.1 3.4 0.5 1.2 0.3 0.7
Delay(s) 44.5 22.6 8.7 10.8 8.3 9.7
Level of Service D C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 44.5 22.6 10.4 9.5
Approach LOS D C B A
jnt�fseGti��;sonni
HCM 2000 Control Delay 21.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.56
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Ufilization 69.2% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc, Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour No-Build Conditions
eueent � _ `EBR %. WBS. C�fC3[_ 3NBR NAL
_ Rf
Lane Configurations Vii T+
Volume(vph) 55 84 75 33 112 26 64 116 32 29 219 116
Ideal Flow(vphp,l) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 - 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fri 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1780 1809 1805 1812 1805 1790
Flt Permitted 0.88 0.90 0.52 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd, Flow(perm) 1584 1652 985 1_812 1220 1790
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.flow(vph) 60 92 82 39 132 31 79 143 40 31 233 123
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 234 0 0 202- 0 79 168 0 31 328 0
Heavy Vehicles(°/o) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type . Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA. Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6,0 6.0-
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 472 493 514 946 637 935
v/s Ratio Prot 0.09 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm c0.15 0.12 0.08 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.50 0.41 0.15 0.18 0.05 0.35
Uniform Delay,d1 19.3 18.8 8.3 8.4 7.8 9.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.7 2.5 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.0
Delay(s) 23.0 21.3 8.9 8.8 8.0 10.4"
Level of Service C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 23.0 21,3 8.9 10.2
Approach LOS C C A B
�,
)ftersotiataumra
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.40
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.1% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2011001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 9
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour No-Build Conditions
~ - *-- t \w
1Novernen; BBL' E81 . EBR WBT., 'NBI� (,±�L 1yBT 1�IBi SBL ,. ABT; SBR
Lane Configurations '
Volume(vph) 148 128 63 36 110 54 72 283 57 41 184 -104
Ideal How(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 9900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6:0 6.0 6.0 &.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.97 0.96 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prat) 1806 1785 1805 1828 1805 1786
Flt Permitted 0.74 0.88 0.56 1.00 0.48 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 1365 15_83 1071 1828 910 1786
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 166 144 71 42 129 64 85 333 67 44 196 111
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 381 0 0 235 0 85 389 0 44 276 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 407 472 559 954 475 932
v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 0.15
vls Ratio Perm c0.28 0.15 0.08 0.05
vlc Ratio 0.94 0.50 0.15 0.49 0.09 0.30
Uniform Delay,d1 22.9 19.4 8.3 9.7 8.0 9.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 31.1 3.7 0.6 1.3 0.4 0.8
Delay(s) 54.0 23.1 8.9 11.0 8.4 9.9
Level of Service D C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 54.0 23.1 16.6 9.7
Approach LOS D C B A
q'ii��fliol�S��►�'ti�rY° " _
HCM 2000 Control Delay 23.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.60
Actuated Cycie Length (s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.5% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
�--
tvlovmra)_ ��� _ EBT,_ � BR -"1MBL_ UVBT .113R;_ NEL; ,;;NB� F& ..... S) SST' 8B�
Lane Configurations ' rr
Volume(vph) - 57. 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1784 1.810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Fit Permitted 0.87 0.91 0.51 1.00 0.64 1.00
SA. Flow(perm) 1580 1656 975 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0_.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 245 0 0 209 0 79 179 0 31 334 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green,G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green,g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated gIC Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 471 494 509 946 631 935
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.19
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 0.08 0.03
We Ratio 0.52 0.42 0.16 0.19 0.05 0.36
Uniform Delay, di 19.5 18.9 8.3 8.5 7.8 9.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 4.1 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.1
Delay(s) 23.6 21.5 9.0 8.9 8.0 10.5
Level of Service C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 23.6 21.5 8.9 10.3
Approach LOS C C A B
�.,
�., .
ldters6dtian 8urna - __.,..
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization. 56.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square II 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
i
moyomen . ` :." B �. ERR-,, 4 I L NBT ABT SBi
Lane Configurations t
Volume(vehlh) 9 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 C.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 325
.vCu, unblocked vol 664 329 332
IC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage_ (s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(.vehm) 590 690 1187
m. .......-.
Dli a"", . ne:#n_ R 1 .. : f3 2 18.E x.8 2 7. ;-
Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 48 0 0 7
cSH 590 690 1187 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.6 8.1 0.0 C.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.7 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
]rite�seetion Sur��ar n.. _ ,.
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capac4y Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013009.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
S: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve_
—�► 7111
Movement
EBS E R__: OL4T" = NBL
Lane Configurations tiy't
Volume(v4A) 214 19 6 292 26 9.
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed (ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX, platoon unblocked 0.98
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 cont vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 591 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 1302 458 788
Dile�b �;Larse# ; B� WB1 NR:4 .�,.......
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 513
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 .0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
n 6vection
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capa&y Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
- '
1 pv urlerit _EBL lr T EBR; hVBL UU % it BR NBA NBT NBR. $BL BT,,-,"-SSR
Lane Configurations
Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
FIt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1808 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.73 0.87 0.55 1.00 0.47 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 1345 1571 1050 1828 887 1788
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 - 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 250 0 85 403 0 44 289 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35,0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green, g(s) 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated WC Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 401 468 548 954 463 934
v/s Ratio Prot cO.22 0.16
vls Ratio Perm c0.29 0.16 0.08 0.05
vlc Ratio 0.99 0.53 0.16 0.42 0.10 0.31
Uniform Delay,d1 23.4 19.6 8.3 9.8 8.0 9.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -
Incremental Delay,d2 41.4 4.3 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.9
Delay(s) 64.7 . 23.9 8.9 11.2 8A 10.0
Level of Service E C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 64.7 23.9 10.8 9.8
Approach LOS E C B A
n-- 'Y
HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service C
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.63
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001,00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No improve.
hove"rEn . . _-. SBL: C NEIL NO!" SOT
Lane Configurations t
Volume(vehlh) 12 60 60 412 283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 .314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99
vC,conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1, stage 1 cont vol 321
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 626
vCu, unblocked vol 944 315 321
tC1 single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
IF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM capacity(vehlh) 459 722 1232
B 1 5RT1
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 .. 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 722 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
li�ter�actigrr�uroarri�ry ,.__ ,
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% _ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-No Improve.
�--
Movement "-,,VVB �T L
1N " - � PJBF -
Lane Configurations }j'r
Volume(vehlh) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0_.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX, platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 421 766 409
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(vehlh) 1138_ 366 649
WB
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
IT�f�fsl� tfof�- Mary
a .
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peals Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
Mp Jrne%t ; ESL EBT......_EBt 'WBL U1dBT 1NE3 '�NBL ," B1 N St3L` SBS BF3
Lane Configurations
Volume(vph) 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Fane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1784 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Flt Permitted 0.87 0.91 0.45 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1580 1659 848 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 31 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 245 0 0 209 0 79 177 0 31 331 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Effective Green, g(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 711 746 296 634 422 626
vls Ratio Prot 0.1.0 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 0.09 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.07 0.53
Uniform Delay,d1 10.7 10.4 14.0 14.0 13.0 15.6
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 1.3 0.9 2.2 1.1 0.3 3.2
Delay(s) 12.1 11.3 16.2 15.1 13.3 18.7
Level of Service B B B B B B
Approach Delay(s) 12.1 11.3 15.4 18.3
Approach LOS B B B B
�. m,.
jrlkersecttrn Sumrraa
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
NCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
& Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
Movem�n3. ., �;..: . -EEL, EBRD NBL
Lane Configurations ) t "+
Volume(vehlh) 9 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0%6 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent.Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked 0.93 0.93 0.93
VC, conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2,stage 2 cont vol 325
vCu,unblocked vol 632 283 287
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(vehlh) 593 704 1188
w _.
__
d6rin 6064"', . .:.;�B - �i..��. N ""2 B 1
Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 48 0 0 7
cSH 593 704 1188 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 5 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 1-1.2 10.5 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.6 1.1 0.0
Approach-LOS B
lr�'t t,$o on;Summary �..
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM []n i nalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018AWPeak Hour BuiJd Conditions Prehme/djusted
Lane Configurations T+
Volume (veh1h) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 096 0 b/. 0%
Peak Hour Factor O.89 O�8� O�8S O�85 O�DU 0.90
2A 1O
H��flow���� 24021 7 344
Pedestrians
Lane.Width(ft)
Walking Speed (fit/u
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(vmh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 382
pX. platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage i omnfvo|
VC2.stage 2vunfvo| _
vCu.unblocked vol 262 609 251
tC.single(s) 41 0A 6.2
hC. 2stage(s) _
#FhA 2.2 3.5 �3
pO queue free% 08 94 99
dN_cupovUy(vmh/h) 1302 456 788
Ojr 6f E,
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left O 7 28
Volume Right 21 O 10
oSH 1700 1302 511
Volume to Capacity 0.15 01.01 0.08
Queue LonAthS5 th(H) 0 U S
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0,2 12.0
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 02 12.6
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 302% ICU Level ofService A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013OOi.OUFowler's Square TIS Update Synohm8 Report
Green man'Podorson. Inc. Page
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
Mover>61ei t,, i=k: =�EBT`. �QR;, WBL WBT � WBR` l�f�L �1BT
Lane Configurations
Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prof) 1808 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.77 0.88 0.50 1.00 0.38 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1417 1590 954 1828 722 1788
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj.Fiow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64- 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 395 0 0 250 0 85 402 0 44 286 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Effective Green,g(s) 27.0 27.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 637 715 333 639 252 625
v/s Ratio Prot c0.22 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 0.16 0.09 0.06
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.35 .0.26 0.63 0.17 0.46
Uniform Delay,d1 12.6 10.8 13.9 16.3 13.5 15.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00
Incremental Delay,d2 4.5 1.3 1.8 4.7 1.5 2.4
Delay(s) 17,1 12.1 15.8 20.9- 15.0 17.5
Level of Service B B B C B B
Approach Delay(s) 17.1 12.1 20.0 172
Approach LOS B B C B
® , : �.. � -
HCM 2000 Control Delay17.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.62
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 60.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersecdo-h Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service. D
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Pretime Adjusted
t
EBL: MR, �E3L�-. _NET ' S'BT PSBR
lJ �rmnf �. .
Lane Configurations
Volume(vehlh) 12 60 60 412 283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft) -
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC,conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 321
vC2, stage 2 con vol 626
vCu, unblocked vol 927 279 285
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM capacity(vehlh) 459 734 1232
bl'edtibti�Land# E �1 EB N1b.1; ,:.N ",2:�: SB 1
_..... __
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 734 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 7 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.4 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.8 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacily Utilization 32.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM []nGigO@lized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018PNPeak Hour Build Conditions PredmaAdjuvted
Lane Configurations
Volume(veh1h) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.80 0,80 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Podooihano
Lane Width(0'
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Um/e(vnh)
Median type None None
Median storage voh)
Upstream signal(U 382
pX. platoon unblocked
vC.conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage ionnfvol
vC2,stage 2cpnfvol
vCu.unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(o) 4.1 6.4 62
tC,2stage(s)
UF(s) 22 3.5 3.3
pOqu�o��% QO 89 98cNcapacity(veh8h) 1138 368 640
Volume Total 421 30 53
Volume Left O 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
o3H 1700 1138 411
Volume toCapac4 0.25 0.01 018
Queue Length 05th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay kA 0.0 0.5 151
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 151
Approach LOS C
Average Delay 12
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level ofSnmIce A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchm8 Report
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AMPeak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1*
110.
Eulavehl+3rt-.. ESR WO, WBT. 0 NBt_:_ NBT ` ` NBR' SBL_ , ABT' :SBR
Lane Configurations 4+ 4+
Volume(vph) 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.99 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd.Flow(prot) 1784 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
At Permitted 0.86 0.90 0.55 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1559 1640 1036 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour Factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 0 245 0 0 209 - 0 79 177 0 31 329 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0°/;
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 9.1 9.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Effective Green,g(s) 9.1 9.1 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Actuated gIC Ratio 0.25 0.25 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 391 412 432 755 503 747
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 c0.18
vls Ratio Perm c0.16 0.13 0.08 - 0,03
vlc Ratio 0.63 0.51 0.18 0.23 0.06 0.44
Uniform Delay,d1 12.0 11.6 6.7 6.8 6.3 7.5
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.1 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4
Delay(s) 15.2 12.6 6.9 7.0 6.4 7.9
Level of Service B B A A A A
Approach Delay(s) 15.2 12.6 6.9 7.8
Approach LOS B B A A
Yrltersedg�Stlmrnary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.51
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 36.2 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
Movemenf t L EBR- hfBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
VoWme(vehlh) 9 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal(ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2,stage 2 conf vol 325
vCu, unblocked vol 691 367 370
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
IF(s) 3.5 3.3 - 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(vehlh) 588 679 1189
m .
Direeti n`bane.#_- E)3'iE13 2 NB 1"" 'N�2,Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 48 0 - 0 7
cSH 588 679 1189 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.7 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.8 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
ir<tersecpon rrnrnar " _-: . ..
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
T FEBR-:11 ,WL
", �VVBT,. NBL NOR
h�vvement m:: � � ,
Lane Configurations +T
Volume(vehlh) 214 19 6 292 2fi 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10.
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type Done Mone
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX, platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 609 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2,2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 1302 456 788
pre tior>,�Lari "#:. EBT: W611 NB•1
_ m
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 511
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 42.6
Approach LOS 13
Intersectid,h Sommary
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
201300 1.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
4\ fi
Mi�rerni nt 13L EBT EBR 'WBL WQT > 8R `NOL NBT NBR�_ ;._5f9"L SBT' SBR
Lane Configurations +'fir +'fir 'fir 'fir
Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194- 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost lime(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util, Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.98 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Said. Flow(prot) 1808 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.77 0.87 0.55 1.00 0.42 1.00
Satd. Flow(perm) 1430 1575 1049 1828 796 1788
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 34 0
Lane Group Fiow(vph) 0 395 0 0 250 0 85 402 0 44 285 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 17.7 17.7 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
Effective Green,g(s) 17.7 17.7 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8
Actuated g1C Ratio 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 568 626 348 607 264 594
vls Ratio Prot c0.22 0.16
vls Ratio Perm c0.28 0.16 0.08 0.06
vlc Ratio 0.70 0.40 0.24 0.66 0.17 0.48
Uniform Delay,d1 11.2 9.6 10.8 12.7 10.5 11.8
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 3.7 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.3 0.6
Delay(s) 14.8 10.0 11.2 15.4 10.8 12.4
Level of Service B B B B B B
Approach Delay(s) 14.8 10.0 14.7 12.2
Approach LOS B B B B
Ira(ef'secfion-5umFrrar . ` " . ;
HCM 2000 Control Delay 13.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.68
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 44.5 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.4% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
m vem04 t" _ _ E8L L' R` .NBT ; SBT S81"l
Lane Configurations r ' t 11�
Volume(vehlh) 12 60 60 412 -283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) _651
PX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1,stage 1 cont vol 321
vC2,stage 2 cont vol 626
vCu, unblocked vol 947 321 328
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM.capacity(vehlh) 459 720 1232
re6ti6n,,t,ane#, .E81 ;:'EI 2 ::, N81. . NB Z SB 1
Volume Total 13 67 71 465 328
Volume Leff 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 720 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 8.1 0.0 -0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
iriteis'ection,Sumhiary
Average Delay 1.5
intersection Capacity Utilization 32,3% IC_U Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 1
V5vment._ EBR 18L NORE��
Lane Configurations �r
Volume(vehlh) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 cont vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(vehlh) 1138 366 649
CJirection,Lanb,# :. EB 1 WBA NB.1.
Volume Total 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
lci ersedon-Summ ky
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-option 2
-* .--
1Viover�en "; ._.._ 'E EBR' V41BL WRT_ SBR.
NBL". NBT NBR_ -SBL,_ SBT: SBR
Lane Configurations T+ T
Volume(vph) 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost firne(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Fri 1.00 0,93 0.98 1.b0 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1762 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Flt Permitted 0.62 1.00 0.91 0.51 1.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1185 1762 1660 975 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 124
RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 28 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 63 182 0 0 209 0 79 179 0 31 334 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green, g(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g1C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 353 525 495 509 946 631 935
vls Ratio Prot 0.10 0.10 c0.19
vls Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.13 0.08 0.03
v1c Ratio 0.18 0.35 0.42 0.16 0.19 0.05 0.36
Uniform Delay,d1 17.4 18.4 18.9 8.3 8.5 7.8 9.4
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 1.1 1.8 2.6 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.1
Delay(s) 18.5 20.2 21.5 9.0 8.9 8.0 10.5
Level of Service B C C A A A B
Approach Delay(s) 19.8 21.5 8.9 10.3
Approach LOS B C A B
I*mecffo um�l ry
HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to'Capacity ratio 0.38
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 67.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level or Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
BL f BR ; 4��fBL ;,��18T R.-.;,-
Lane Configurations
Volume(vehm) 9 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 .48 38 249 363 -7
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signs!(ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked 0.97 0.97 0.97
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 coni vol 367
vC2 stage 2 cont vol 325
vCu, unblocked vol 664 329 332
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s). 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(vehlh) 590 690 1187
1 a 1: EBS. : X1131 :2 SB_1 .
m ........_
Volume Total10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 48. 0 0 7
cSH 590 690 1187 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.6 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.7 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
klerse'ction";agmmar
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8- Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-option 2
�ovsmeli .
E�B�,. _ PSR ;1NBIL� . W8Z.��®
Lane Configurations
Volume(vehlh) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked 0.98
vC, conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf.vol
vC2,stage 2 cont vol
vCu, unblocked vol 262 591 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage(s)
1F(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 1302 458 788
Rirection;t=ape# E13 11.':
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 513
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
Movement _ 91- . . EBS 1=8 tlBL` WBT WBR t�1�L TBT 3Vbf� �8� SST R
Lane Configurations _
Volume(vph) 150' 138 63 38 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prof) 1805 1798 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.57 1.00 0.90 0.55 1.00 0.47 1.00
Satd. Flow(per) 1082 1798 1626 1050 1828 887 1788
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 30 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 169 226 0 0 250 0 85 403 0 44 289 0
Heayy Vehicles{%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Effective Green, g(s) 20.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 322 536 485 548 954 463 934
v!s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.22 0.16
v!s Ratio Perm c0.16 0.15 0.08 0.05
v!c Ratio 0.52 0.42 0.52 0.16 0.42 0.10 0.31
Uniform Delay,d1 19.5 18.9 19.5 8.3 9.8 8.0 9.1
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 6.0 2.4 3.9 0.6 1.4 0.4 0.9
Delay(s) 25.6 21.3 23.4 8.9 11.2 8.4 10.0
Level of Service C C C A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 23.1 23.4 10.8 9.8
Approach LOS C C B A
.... ...
HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.46
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 67,0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update 'Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
Nloyei enf EBS`, EBR INBT SBT SBS
Lane Configurations r '� t "fir
Volume(vehlh) 12 - 60 60 412 283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade - 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 314 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(fUs)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked 0.99 0.99 0.99
YC,conflicting volume 947. 321 328
vC1, stage 1 conf vol 321
vC2,stage 2 cont vol 626
vCu, unblocked vol 944 315 321
tC, single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 97 91 94
cM capacity(vehlh) 459 722 1232
D ecWn,,:Lane# B 1; EB 2 B 3... N�2: SB,1
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 722 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 . 0.06 0.29 0.19
Queue Length 95th(ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS 8
Ihte s66 ii
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU'Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HGM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 2
1-* fl - - 46\ /#I
M�rsrer�tat�t
WBT.WBL
RBL:::- N B R,,;
Lane Configurations
Volume(vehlh) 339 36 12 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 381 40 14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 cont vol
vC2,stage 2 cont vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6,2
tC, 2 stage(s)
tF(s) 2.2 3,5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(vehlh) 1138 366 649
Dre6ti6h, Lane # EB I VVB,,l
Volume Dotal 421 351 53
Volume Left 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 _ 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
161te>rsecl6n,Summar =
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity.Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/Haviland Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
MAverrie(ik: ; SBL. E13T" , ;EBI 15L WBT WBFt NBL� `;N$T, NBR Sly[ SBT SBR
.:
Lane Configurations
Volume(vph) -- 57 91 75 34 117 26 64 123 34 29 224 117
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 -
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.93 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prot) 1805 1762 1810 1805 1812 1805 1791
Flt Permitted 0.81 1.00 0.89 0.55 4.00 0.64 1.00
Satd.Flow(perm) 1546 1762 1621 1036 1812 1208 1791
Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj. Flow(vph) 63 100 82 40 138 31 79 152 42 31 238 424
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 0 33 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 63 182 0 0 209 0 79 177 0 31 329 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Effective Green,g(s) 8.4 8.4 8.4 15.1 15.1 15.1 15.1
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 365 416 383 440 770 513 761
v/s Ratio Prot 0.10 0.10 c0.18
v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 c0.13 0.08 0.03
v/c Ratio 0.17 0.44 0.55 0.18 0.23 0.06 0.43
Uniform Delay,d1 10.8 11.5 11.9 6.3 6.5 6,0 7.2
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4
Delay(s) 11.0 12.3 13.5 6.5 6.6 6.1 7.6
Level of Service B B B A A A A
Approach Delay(s) 12.0 13.5 6.6 7.5
Approach LOS B B A A
Iritersectip S-ir mart':
_._.._... _....._ n_
HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A
HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47
Actuated Cycle Length(s) 35.5 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service B
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
11llflvemen£. EBL: EBR". iL.
N!B.i- " SBT , .:SBR
Lane Configurations fi 'fir
Volume(vehlh) 9 43 32 212 327 6
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 48 38 249 363 7
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(ffls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 651
pX, platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 691 367 370
vC1,stage 1 conf vol 367
vC2, stage 2 conf vol 325
vCu, unblocked vol 691 367 370
tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC,2 stage(s) 5.4
tF(s) - 3,5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue free% 98 93 97
cM capacity(vehlh) 588 679 1189
blfection,Lene EB1 a;- 52
Volume Total 10 48 38 249 370
Volume Left 10 0 38 0 0
Volume Right 0 48 0 0 7
cSH 588 679 1189 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.15 0.22
Queue Length 95th(ft) 1 6 2 0 0
Control Delay(s) 11.2 10.7 8.1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.8 1.1 0.0
Approach LOS B
Ihtei`section ary
Average Delay 1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 AM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
Movement, `......... EBT.. __I�� WCL �lU�T .. N�3L� NR.
Lane Configurations T* 4
Volume(vehm) 214 19 6 292 26 9
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 240 21 7 344 29 10
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed(ftls)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type intone None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal(ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,,conflicting volume 262 609 251
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 262 609 251
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC, 2 stage(s)
IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 94 99
cM capacity(vehlh) 1302 456 788
Dk&1`ct ca8',
Volume Total 262 351 39
Volume Left 0 7 29
Volume Right 21 0 10
cSH 1700 1302 511
Volume to Capacity 0.15 0.01 0.08
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 0 6
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Lane LOS A B
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 0.2 12.6
Approach LOS B
I0tetseotiQn Summary . _._.
Average Delay 0.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.2% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
3: Bay Road & Blind Rock Road/HaViland Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
jol+ eiert.' _ 61 ABT_-- EBR_ :1BL WBT, WBR NBT NSR SBS Sgt
Lane Configurations Vi T*
Volume(vph) 150 138 63 38 - 120 54 72 293 59 41 194 106
Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow(prof) 1805 1798 1788 1805 1828 1805 1788
Flt Permitted 0.72 1.00 0.89 0.57 1.00 0.48 1.00
Satd. Flow{perm) 1362 1798 1605 1077 1828 915 1788
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.94 0.94 0.94
Adj,.Flow(vph) 169 155 71 45 141 64 85 345 69 44 206 113
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 37 0
Lane Group Flow(vph) 169 226 0 0 250 0 85 400 0 44 282 0
Heavy Vehicles(%) 0% 1% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0% 1% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA Perm - NA Perm NA
Protected Phases 4 8 2 6
Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6
Actuated Green, G(s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2
Effective Green,g(s) 11.6 11.6 11.6 14.2 14.2 14.2 14.2
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
Clearance Time(s) 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0
Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Lane Grp Cap(vph) 417 551 492 404 686 343 671
v/s Ratio Prot 0.13 c0.22 0.16
Ws Ratio Perm 0.12 c0.16 0.08 0.05
v/c Ratio 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.21 0.58 0.13 0.42
Uniform Delay,d1 10.4 10.4 10.8 8.0 9.4 7.7 8.7
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay,d2 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.3 1.3 0.2 0.4
Delay(s) 11.0 10.9 11.6 8.3 10.7 7.9 9.2
Level of Service B B B A B A A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 11.6 10.3 9.0
Approach LOS B B B A
(r��ers8orarna - -
NCM 2000 Control Delay 10.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B
NCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 37.8 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period(min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 1
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
6: Bay Road & Fowler Square 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
bvement`. ;;: EBL m
� '. NBL NBT Sgt,
Lane Configurations t
Volume(vehlh) 12 60 60 412 283 12
Sign Control Stop Free Free
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly flow rate(vph) 13 67 71 485 31.4 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width(ft)
Walking Speed(fits)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare(veh)
Median type TWLTL TWLTL
Median storage veh) 2 2
Upstream signal (ft) 651
pX,platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume 947 321 328
vC1, stage 1 cont vol 321
vC2, stage 2 cont vol 626
vCu, unblocked vol 947 321 328
tC, single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1
tC, 2 stage(s) 5.4
tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2
p0 queue tree% 97 91 94
cM capacity(vehlh) 459 720 1232
.,_ ,
dire bon;L rle#� °1 B 2_=� . NB,,2 -
Volume Total 13 67 71 485 328
Volume Left 13 0 71 0 0
Volume Right 0 67 0 0 13
cSH 459 720 1232 1700 1700
Volume to Capacity 0.03 0.09 0.06 0,29 0.19
Queue Length 95th (ft) 2 8 5 0 0
Control Delay(s) 13.1 10.5 8,1 0.0 0.0
Lane LOS B B A
Approach Delay(s) 10.9 1.0 0.0
Approach LOS B
l*rsQcfiQn
Average Delay 1.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.3% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square TIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Page 2
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
8: Fowler Square & Blind Rock Road 2018 PM Peak Hour Build Conditions-Option 3
h4oYet ien ; EBT, 13RWB L ' T NIBS N15k
Lane Configurations T+
Volume(vehlh) 339 36 12. 286 36 12
Sign Control Free Free Stop
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90
Hourly Flow rate(vph) 381 40 .14 336 40 13
Pedestrians
Lane Width Ott)
Walking Speed(f11s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn Flare(veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 382
pX,platoon unblocked
vC,conflicting volume 421 766 401
vC1,stage 1 conf vol
vC2,stage 2 conf vol
vCu,unblocked vol 421 766 401
tC,single(s) 4.1 6.4 6.2
tC,2 stage(s)
IF(s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free% 99 89 98
cM capacity(vehlh) 1138 366 649
X31 ,y1rg
Volume total 421 351 53
Volume Lett 0 14 40
Volume Right 40 0 13
cSH 1700 1138 411
Volume to Capacity 0.25 0.01 0.13
Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 11
Control Delay(s) 0.0 0.5 15.1
Lane LOS A C
Approach Delay(s) 0.0 . 0.5 15.1
Approach LOS C
_Iy.......ers �tf _� e
a ......9ruinaY . . r. _
Average Delay 1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34,8% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period(min) 15
2013001.00 Fowler's Square FIS Update Synchro 8 Report
Greenman_Pedersen, Inc. Page 3
SPEED DATA
Alb-2011037.00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Bay Road Northbound Bay Road Southbound
Trial Speed* Trial Speed's
1 44 1 46 85th Percentile Speeds
2 39 2 46 NB SB
3 45 3 38 46 48
4 44 4 45
5 39 5 47
6 43 6 43
7 49 7 48
8 44 8 49
9 45 9 43
10 44 10 47
11 42 11 46
12 41 12 47
13 43 13 42
14 49 14 44
15 44 15 48
16 46 16 48
17 45 17 44
18 44 18 45
19 46 19 43
20 41 20 48
21 43 21 46
22 45 22 44
23 43 23 43
24 47 24 46
25 42 25 46
Avg. 43.9 Avg, 45.3
* Denotes speed measured near proposed site entrance for vehicles traveling under free flow conditions.
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
Alb-2011037.00 Fowlers Square TIS Town of Queensbury
Blind Rock Eastbound Blind Rock Westbound
Trial Speed* Trial Speed*
1 45 1 41 85th Percentile Speeds
2 39 2 38 EB WB
3 38 3 39 43 40
4 39 4 38
5 41 5 37
6 43 6 42
7 38 7 39
8 42 8 44
9 43 9 40
10 48 10 35
11 35 11 36
12 40 12 38
13 38 13 40
14 40 14 39
15 37 15 38
16 36 16 40
17 40 17 39
18 38 18 42
19 43 19 37
20 42 20 37
21 42 21 36
22 44 22 35
23 39 23 38
24 40 24 37
25 39 25 37
Avg. 40.4 Avg. 38.5
* _Denotes speed measured near proposed site entrance for vehicles traveling under free flow conditions.
Greenman-Pedersen, Inc.
From: Faith,Peter
To: Matthew Fuller
Cc: Dan Galusha; Bob Manz; Mike Ingersoll
Subject: FW: Fowler Square
Date: Wednesday,April 10,2013 8:41:12 AM
Attachments: innage001.png
Fowler Square TIS w Appendix APR13.pdf
Matt -- Here is our Traffic Study for Fowler Square. It documents that there are no significant
impacts due to the project and includes a discussion of our recent meetings and efforts with the
County and Town Highway Departments.
Let me know if you need anything else at this time.
Peter Faith, P.E.
GN 518 4539431
flhriss c ornrrwirric aiioin and any s itac,lhrrna>irrk„acre iirr4:c>irrded only fair 4i1he w c„ of4:Ihrc:, iir diuidu al oir eini:i4y irrstrrc>:V as i1he s ddirc.,,,,ee 114: may
cacsiniaiin iirrfoirrnaiioin uvlhric,lhr is Ipiriuilc,:bed 6tind/oir caonfidc>iniial uairrdeiraIGzIGzlic,<rIY•rb law ifyou aii inoi 4,Ihe iirr4:c>irrde V irc.c,i1lria:,irr¢,csir suac;lhr irecai1lriairr4:`ss
ernployee oar sr:bdaini,,you acre Iheirelby irroifl ed Vlh ait starry di„sserrdiraiioin,copy oar disclosure of 4,Ihri;,s c;csrrrruairric,<r¢icsirr is ss4iric,4:ly IlrirohrilY•riied and
o inoi f'y¢Ihrc:,ssc,irrdear irnrnediaiely.
Department of Community
Development
Queensbury Planning Board
Staff Notes
4E7L December 15, 2011
APPLICATION: Site Plan 62-2011 /Area Variance 61-2011
APPLICANT: Queensbury Partners
REQUESTED ACTION: Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning the
relief requested in the variance application as well as the potential
impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding
community
LOCATION: Corner of Blind Rock Road and Bay Road
EXISTING ZONING: O-Office
SEQRA STATUS: Type I
WARREN CO. PB: N/A for 12/15/11
PARCEL HISTORY: Sub 13-1999 35.12 acre parcel - 14 commercial lots
Approved 8/15/2000
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Plan: Applicant proposes a total of 56,180 sq. ft. of commercial development distributed between five
(5)buildings and development of 175 residential apartment units distributed between 11 buildings to
include 93 residential units within four(4) of the proposed commercial structures.
Freshwater Wetlands: Land disturbance with 100 feet of a regulated wetland.
Area Variance: Relief requested from density, front setback, travel corridor setback, residential setback
and height requirements of the Office zone. Further, relief requested from wetland setback requirements.
STAFF COMMENTS: Changes to the plan for this review include the re-orienteering of Building 5 to
totally be within the 300 foot setback for residential structures and corresponding change to parking
configuration. Further change also deals with building 5 and includes the elimination of ground floor
residential units in favor of commercial/office space. It is understood that the project is contingent upon
Zoning Board of Appeals approvals of variances of which little indication was offered from the ZBA
concerning these issues at the joint meeting in August.
The applicant is before the Planning Board in order to garner a recommendation to the ZBA concerning the
variances requested and their potential impacts on the surrounding community. Apparently the applicant
has not commenced detailed engineering or design portion of the project. Further, the project is listed as a
Type I action under SEQRA and will require both the Planning Board and ZBA to commence the protocols
as set forth for this type of action, in particular Lead Agency. As such, no Planning Board recommendation
can be forwarded to the ZBA at this point in time and no ZBA decision can be rendered until SEQR has
been completed. However, staff believes that this does not preclude the Planning Board from forwarding
the minutes of this meeting or any other communication it would deem beneficial for the ZBA to review.
Variances required as presented:
1. Density- 142 residential units allowed/ 175 proposed. Calculation based on 1 acre per 8 dwelling
units as per §179-3-040B(2)(b)[1][b]. 17.81 buildable acres x 8 units = 142 units. Note: Usable
acreage after deducting the commercial uses proposed is as follows: 21.83 usable acres on
parcel; 0.5 acres/7,000 square feet with 56,180 square feet commercial development proposed
results in 4.02 acres utilized for commercial density calculation. 21.83 acres-4.02 acres =
17.81 acres remaining for residential density.
2. Residential units within 300 feet of Bay Road Professional Office setback line as per §179-3-
040B(2)(a)[1].
3. Bay Road Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO)-Buildings 1 and 3 within 75 foot setback requirement.
Further,parking associated with buildings 1 and 3 within 75 foot green space requirement. All as
per §179-4-030C.
4. Front setback-Buildings 1, 3, 11, and 13 within 75 foot front setback requirement as per §179-3-
040.
5. Wetland setback-Buildings 8, 9, 10, and 13 within 75 foot wetland setback requirement as per
§179-3-040.
6. Height-As per Development Study on Site Statistics page, it is assumed all but buildings 3 and 6
would require height relief as per §179-3-040.
Variances in table form
300 ft. 75 Ft. Travel 75Ft. Front 75 Ft.
Building# Density Residential Corridor Setback Wetland Height
setback Overlay Setback
1 -268 ft. -43 ft. -43+ 37ft. -3 ft.
2 - 128 ft. - 14 ft.
3 -45 ft. -45 ft.
4 - 138 ft. - 14 ft.
5 - 172 ft. T--1-4 ft.
6
-aft.
7
8 - 11.6 ft. V-3ft.
9 - 16.4 ft. -3ft.
10 -21.7 ft. -3ft.
11 - 17.4 ft. -3ft.
12 -3ft.
13 5.3 ft. -44.6 ft. -3ft.
Additional relief for parking within the 75 foot green space requirement associated with Buildings 1 and 3
will need to be considered by the ZBA
Please see density relief calculations above. Please note that density relief has been calculated for the
residential aspect of this proposal; relief could be designated for retail uses also.
L:AKeith ObomeA2011 StaffNotes\Planning\August 31\QueensburyPartners.doc
- 2 -
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF WARREN
In the Matter of the Application of
KATHLEEN W. SONNABEND, DAVID L. THORNE,
LARA CURRIE and JOHN CURRIE,
DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioners,
RJI No.: 56-I-2013-0578
for a Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 Index No.: 59266
-against-
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING
BOARD and QUEENSBURY PARTNERS,LLC,
Respondents.
Appearances:
Caffry& Flower(John W. Caffry, Esq., of counsel) Attorneys for the Petitioners
Meyer& Fuller, PLLC (Matthew F. Fuller, Esq., of counsel)Attorneys for
Queensbury Partners,LLC
Miller,Mannix, Schachner& Hafner,LLC (Leah Everhart, Esq., of counsel)
Attorneys for Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning
Board
KROGMANN, J.
This Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) matter concerns a
development project involving a 34 acre parcel of real property located at the corner of Bay and
Blind Rock Roads in the Town of Queensbury. The property is located within the zoning district
classified as "Office".
Procedural Summ
Initially, by Notice of Petition and Petitioner filed on August 23, 2013, the petitioners
sought judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78 annulling the July 24 and August 21, 2013
approvals by the respondent Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter referred
to as the "ZBA") of the area variance application submitted by respondent Queensbury Partners,
LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"); and determining that respondent Town of
Queensbury Planning Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Planning Board") may not approve
the site plan review application by the Applicant unless a use variance is first obtained for the
construction of multifamily dwellings in that portion of the zoning district located within 300 feet
of Bay Road.
Subsequently, an Amended Petition dated September 30, 2013 was filed seeking similar
relief as to the approvals granted by the ZBA but also seeking to annul, vacate and set aside the
August 27, 2013 approval of respondent Planning Board of the site plan review application of the
Applicant for the same project.
In a March 10, 2014 Decision and Order of this Court, this Court denied respondent's
pre-answer motion to dismiss the petitioners' first, fourth and fifth causes of action. The appeal
of a certain November 10, 2011 letter from Municipal Respondent Zoning Administrator Craig
Brown was remanded back to the ZBA for consideration. The determination of the Zoning
Administrator was interpreted to mean that the Applicant did not need to obtain a use variance
but, rather an area variance for the proposed construction of residential building within 300 feet
of Bay Road as part of the overall project. The Amended Article 78 Petition was held in
abeyance pending further determination by the ZBA and, if necessary, by the Planning Board as
to the site plan review approval.
On June 4, 2014, the ZBA denied the appeal and affirmed Brown's determination that the
Page 2 of 14
300 foot limitation in the Town Zoning Law constituted a dimensional limitation from which the
proper relief was an area variance by a vote of 4-3. By Second Amended Petition, petitioners
now also seek to annul, vacate and set aside the June 4, 2014 decision of the ZBA.
The Court references hereto and incorporates herein the previous Decisions and Orders of
the Court dated March 10, 2014 and August 22, 2014,
Standing
Preliminarily, the respondents have argued that the petitioners lack standing to bring the
instant action. Respondents assert that Petitioner Kathleen Sonnabend lives 800 feet from the
subject area and not even in the same zoning district. Respondents further assert that although
Petitioner David Thorne lives off of Blind Rock Road and this property even borders the subject
lot, insofar as his deed is contingent, he lacks standing to sue'. Similarly, while Petitioners John
and Lara Currie own property on Bay Road near the subject area, the respondents allege that the
Curries have not submitted any evidence showing what, if any, negative impact the proposed
project would have on their property.
Petitioners assert that three of the four named petitioners received notice about the
proposed site plan review as they own property within 500 feet of the project site. Petitioner
Kathleen Sonnabend lives more than 500 feet from the proposed project, yet she has raised
concerns about the overall changes of the character of the area, increased traffic congestion issues
' Applicant's Memorandum of Law dated October 6, 2014 asserts that petitioner David
Thorne's interest is merely in remainder until the passing of Patti L. Thorne, however, without a
copy of the entire deed or instrument of conveyance, it is unclear what David Thorne's property
interest is. Nonetheless, David Thorne has submitted an affidavit wherein he attests that he has
resided in his home for 45 years and intends to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Page 3 of 14
and the ultimate effect the project would have on the Town's sewer system.'
"To establish standing in a proceeding to review administrative decision
making,petitioners must show that the proposed action will have a harmful effect
on them and that such harm is different than the injury suffered by the public at
Iarge. However, standing is to be liberally construed so that land use disputes can
be resolved on their merits rather than by restrictive standing rules. If petitioners
can show that their premises are located in close proximity to the subject property,
then actual injury is not required for it is presumed that they will suffer an adverse
impact different in nature or degree than the public at large (internal citations
omitted)." ManupelIa v. Troy City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 272 A.D.2d 761, 762
(3d Dept. 2000).
Insofar as the petitioners are all within reasonably close proximity to the proposed project
and their concerns asserted regarding increased traffic congestion as well'as the impact on the
current sewer system, the petitioners have legitimate and specific arguments to support their
claim of standing. This project will have direct,tangible effects upon the neighborhood in which
the petitioners reside. Each of the named petitioners does not have to have the same concerns or
resulting potential impact from the project, but clearly each of the petitioners will be impacted by
the proposed plan. "The individual petitioners each established that they live in close proximity
to the project and that certain aspects of it,particularly traffic,would allegedly cause them
individualized harm." Defreestville Area Neighborhood Assn Inc. v. Plannin2 Bd. of Town of
N. Greenbush, 16 A.D.3d 715, 718 (3d Dept. 2005). "Even without establishing an injury in fact,
a person is presumed to have standing if he or she falls within the statute's zone of interests and
' The sewer system has become a large part of the controversy. However, despite having
received additional information, post-argument and without leave, about the capacity of the
current system and the ability to sustain the needs if the project was built as proposed, the Court
has not considered same because of the improper submission and the timing of the same.
Page 4 of 14
his or her property is sufficiently proximate to the property at issue (internal citations omitted)."
The Fund for Lake George v. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, et al, A.D.3d
(3d Dept. 03/12/2015). As such, the Court will deny the respondents' challenge to standing
by these named petitioners.
De Novo Hearin
Petitioners challenge the ZBA's determination to approve the amended area variance on
July 24, 2013 prior to referring the application to the Warren County Planning Department for
review pursuant to General Municipal Law §239-m. Petitioners allege that the July 24, 2013
approval of the area variance was a nullity without the benefit of the County Planning
Department's determination. The ZBA referred the subject application to the Warren County
Planning Department after its initial determination and the proper referral was then made to the
Warren County Planning Department. Upon referral, the Warren County Planning Department
subsequently determined that there would be no county impact resulting from the project when it
was reviewed on August 14, 2013. As such, on August 21, 2013,the ZBA voted to "re-affirm"
the July 24, 2013 vote. Petitioners assert that the ZBA cannot"re-affirm" a vote which was a
nullity in the first instance and as such, the vote on August 21, 2013 should have been after a de
novo hearing on the variance application.
"The alleged failure to comply with the referral provisions of the statute is not a mere
procedural irregularity but is rather a jurisdictional defect involving the validity of a legislative
act." Ernalex Const, Realty Cop?. V. City of Glen Cove, 256 A.D.2d 336, 338 (2d Dept. 1998);
also citing General Municipal Law §239-m. In this instance, the ZBA recognized that its'
determination rendered prior to the finding by the Warren County Planning Department because
Page 5 of 14
of its failure to make the proper referral was in error. To correct this procedural irregularity, the
ZBA utilized the next opportunity,to convene, to wit: August 21, 2013, to re-vote on the variance
application post-referral. While the petitioners challenge the terminology"re-affirm", in essence,
the August 21, 2013 vote was based upon the information that was before the ZBA as of July 24,
2013. The subsequent vote, or affirmation of the previous vote, was merely a correction of a
technical error. The argument to the contrary is one of semantics not substance. If the ZBA had
tabled the vote on July 24, 2013 pending the determination of the Warren County Planning
Board, the ZBA would not have been required to re-open the hearing nor have had to undertake a
de novo review. Insofar as there was no new information acquired other than the County
Planning Department's determination of"no impact"3, there was no error in the ZBA's vote on
August 21, 2013. As such, that portion of the petition is denied.
Densi
The petitioners have challenged the computation of the residential density insofar as they
argue that the 300 foot area from Bay Road should be excluded from the total acreage
calculation. Respondents argue that the petitioners have failed to raise this issue previously and
therefore, the petitioners have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies and cannot now
raise this in the petition. Petitioners deny this allegation. Instead, petitioners reference various
letters and comments wherein the issue of the overall density was raised before the ZBA and
Planning Board.
Queensbury Town Code §179-16-090 indicates that"[a]n action, decision or ruling of the
3 Municipal respondents assert that the determination of"no impact"was also previously
indicated by the Warren County Planning Board in March 2013.
Page 6 of 14
Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to this chapter may be reviewed at the
instance of any aggrieved person in accordance with Article 78 of the CPLR, but application for
such review must be made not later than 30 days from the effective date of the decision or ruling
or the date when the action or omission occurred, whichever comes later." The Planning Board
conducted public hearings on April 23,.May 23, July 23 and August 27, 2013 and approved the
site pian submitted by the Applicant on August 27, 2013.
Petitioners filed their original petition on August 23, 2013 wherein they sought to prevent
the Planning Board from considering the site plan application in light of their argument that the
appropriate variance to b , sought by the Applicant was a use variance instead of an area variance.
In light of the August 27, 2013 determination by the Planning Board, which was duly filed on
August 30, 20134, the petitioners filed an Amended Petition on October 1, 2013. The Amended
Petition also challenged the Planning Board's determination.
Upon review of the documents, particularly those referenced by the petitioners to support
their argument that the issue of the calculation of density should not include the property in the
300 foot exclusion zone, the petitioners' argument is unavailing. The issue of density,per se,
was raised in the documents and meetings', however,the petitioners' arguments regarding the
calculations were not clear. It cannot be reasonably determined from the record that the
petitioners were specifically challenging the inclusion of the 300 foot area in the total acreage for
4 While there is not a date stamp on the resolution (R.631), footnote 2 of the Amended
Petition indicates that the document was filed with the Town Clerk on August 30, 2013.
5 Petitioners assert that the time to challenge the calculation did not begin until the
approval of the site plan because same was not specifically addressed prior to the site plan
approval.
Page 7 of 14
allowed development. Notwithstanding same, the petitioners did clearly raise a general argument
regarding the density allowed.
Queensbury Town Code §A183-26 reads as follows:
"The maximum number of buildable lots for a conventional subdivision
shall be calculated as follows:
A. From the total area of the property to be subdivided, subtract:
1. Local, state, or federally regulated wetlands.
2. Water bodies, including but not limited to ponds, streams, rivers,
etc.
3. Rock outcrops.
4. Slopes in excess of 20%, to include both natural and man-made
Slopes.
5. The area to be set aside for other public use, such as parkland.
6. The area to be occupied by the proposed streets or rights-of-way.
7. The area occupied by other public easements or rights-of-way
across the property such as major power or telephone lines.
B. Then divide the resulting figure (the remaining acreage) by the density
allowed in the zone in which the lots will be Iocated specified in §179-3-
040 in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Law."
The petitioners had only objected to the density calculations per se during the relevant
proceedings. However, in the amended petition and second amended petition, the petitioners
expounded upon their theory as to why the calculations were inaccurate, to wit: that since the
Office District prohibits residential building within 300 feet of Bay Road, such prohibited space
cannot reasonably be built upon and therefore should not be included in the overall acreage
calculation for purposes of determining allowable density. Notwithstanding the petitioners'
previous failure to raise this specific argument, same will be addressed at this juncture. The
formula to determine density as described in Town Code §A183-26 does not specifically
Page 8 of 14
reference areas such as the 300 foot area at issue in this matter which area the petitioners of
course want to be subtracted from the acreage calculation. The area consisting of 300 feet from
Bay Road is not akin to a wetland where all construction is prohibited. Instead, it is an area
which could accommodate construction upon an appropriate variance. None of the other
exceptions contained within in the Town Code §A183-26 apply, and therefore, this disputed 300
foot area may properly be included in the overall density calculation and this portion of the
petition is denied.
Use vs Area Variance
In sum and substance, the heart of this matter is that the Petitioners object to the area
variance approval and the subsequent site plan approval upon the grounds that the 'ZBA erred in
granting an area variance rather than.required a use variance. The petitioners argue that the ZBA
actually approved a use not allowed in the part of the Office District that is within 300 feet of
Bay Road. Petitioners cite the Queensbury Town Zoning Law §179-3-040(2), which states in
relevant part:
"Office. The Office District encompasses areas where professional offices
are encouraged. These are located along arterials adjoining residential areas
where compatibility with residential uses is important. The Town desires to see
development of high-quality offices where structures and facilities are constructed
with particular attention to detail, including but not limited to architecture,
lighting, landscaping, signs, streetscape,public amenities, and pedestrian
connections. The Office District can.function as a transition zone protecting
residential zones from more intensive commercial uses, while providing
convenient professional services to residential neighborhoods. Office and
residential facilities should be sited and built to demonstrate compatibility with
adjoining uses and to minimize any negative impacts on adjoining land uses.
(a) Uses allowed. The uses allowed in this district are set forth on
Table 3 of this chapter. In addition:
Page 9 of 14
[1] No residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of
Bay Road'.
[2] Both commercial and residential uses are allowed beyond
300 feet back from the arterial road (emphasis added)."
In the proposed project, the Applicant seeks to build mixed use residential and
commercial buildings within the 300 foot area along Bay Road. The petitioners argue that the
plain language of the permissible uses in the Queensbury Town Code specifically prohibit
residential buildings in the subject area and as such, a use variance was required. The petitioners
further argue that there are specific "dimensional requirements" listed under a separate
subparagraph (b) for which the subject 300 foot"setback" for residential space could have been
listed if it were merely a dimensional issue as opposed to a use issue.
The municipal respondents argue that the aforementioned relevant language in the
Queensbury Town Code has been misconstrued by the petitioners'. Municipal respondents assert
that inasmuch as the Residential use is allowed in the Office District, but with a caveat of more
than 300 feet from Bay Road, then an area variance is required to minimize the distance from
Bay Road or another arterial. The municipal respondents assert that to hold that residential
buildings within the 300 foot zone is a prohibited use as opposed to a dimensional requirement
would be to create a"subzone" in the Office District.
' At the commencement of this action, Town Code §179-3-040(2) read"[1] No
residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road and West Mountain Road."
' Respondent Queensbury Partners, LLC (Applicant) agrees with and endorses the
position of the Municipal respondents.
Page 10 of 14
N.Y. Town Law § 267 states in relevant part:
"(a) `Use variance' shall mean the authorization by the zoning board of
appeals for the use of land for a purpose which is otherwise not allowed
or is prohibited by the applicable zoning regulations.
(b) `Area variance' shall mean the authorization by the zoning board of
appeals for the use of land in a manner which is not allowed by the dimensional or
physical requirements of the applicable zoning regulations."
Petitioners argue that the language of Town Zoning Law §179-3-040(2) is quite clear, to
wit: that residential buildings are prohibited within the 300 feet area from Bay Road. While
residential use is permissible per se in the Office District, the Town Code explicitly carves out an
exception"no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road". Applicant argues
that if the proscription of residential building within 300 feet of Bay Road requires a use variance
as opposed to an area variance,the language is ambiguous and the ambiguity should be construed
in its favor. The Court disagrees.
"Where words of a statute are free from ambiguity and express plainly, clearly and
distinctly the legislative intent, resort may not be had to other means of interpretation." N.Y.
Stat. Law § 76. Insofar as the statute reads "no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet
of Bay Road" and the subparagraph heading is "Uses", the meaning is plain and unambiguous.
The Court notes that during the pendency of this petition, at a hearing held on June 16,
2014, the Town Board revised the language of Town Code §179-2-010(B)(2) to delete "West
Mountain Road"but specifically decided that the "Bay Road" designation remain. The
resolution was adopted by the Town Board on July 21, 2014. In addition, Table 3, which is
included at the end of Chapter 179 of the Town Code, was amended to add a footnote stating:
Page 11 of 14
"no residential uses shall be allowed within 300 feet of Bay Road."
"An area variance permits deviation from strict compliance with the
zoning ordinance's requirements for, as an example, the physical characteristics of
premises, so long as the purposes for which the premises are intended to be used
are permitted by the ordinance. However, a use variance often proposes a change
in the character of the premises and involves a utilization not permitted by the
ordinance (internal citations omitted)." Croissant v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of
Town of Woodstock Ulster CM., 83 A.D.2d 673, 674 (3d Dept. 1981).
Indeed, allowing the inclusion of mixed residential/commercial space within the 300 foot
exclusion zone of Bay Road would change the character of the subject area which is largely
office space and commercial buildings, with the exception of residences which may be a pre-
existing use. Moreover, during the pendency of this litigation, when presented with an
opportunity to amend the language regarding Bay Road as it did relative to West Mountain Road,
the Town Board opted to specifically reaffirm the 300 foot exclusion as to Bay Road. "While
courts must generally give great deference to a zoning board's interpretation of a local
ordinance—disturbing it only if it is irrational or unreasonable--deference is not required when
the issue is one of pure legal interpretation of a statute or ordinance." Mack v. Bd. of Appeals,
Town of Homer, 25 A.D.3d 977, 980 (3d Dept. 2006). Herein, it is clear that the Office District
has proscribed residential use in the 300 foot exclusion zone from Bay Road.
"While stability and regularity are undoubtedly essential to the operation
of zoning plans, zoning is by no means static. Changed or changing conditions
call for changed plans, and persons who own property in a particular zone or use
district enjoy no eternally vested right to that classification if the public interest
demands otherwise. Accordingly, the power of a village to amend its basic zoning
ordinance in such away as reasonably to promote the general welfare cannot be
questioned. Just as clearly, decision as to how a community shall be zoned or
Page 12 of 14
rezoned, as to how various properties shall be classified or reclassified, rests with
the local legislative body; its judgment and determination will be conclusive,
beyond interference from the courts, unless shown to be arbitrary, and the burden
of establishing such arbitrariness is imposed upon him who asserts it." Rodgers v.
Vill. of Tarrytown,own, 302 N.Y. 115, 121 (1951).
It is of particular note that the proposed development of the subject project has been a
long and tedious collaboration between the Applicant thereof, the participants from the
municipality and the public. The Court is aware that the original proposal did not include the
mixed use residential/commercial within the 300 foot area from Bay Road but was eventually
added at the request of the Planning Board. However, it is not appropriate for the Court to
interpret the law in such a manner as to coincide with the desires of the municipality when the
municipality has the legislative power to achieve its desired result.
Based upon the foregoing, the First, Second, Fourth and Fifth causes of action are
granted; the Third and Sixth causes of action are denied. As such, the August 21, 2013 approval
by the ZBA of the area variance application is annulled and the resulting site plan approval based
upon the same, by the Planning Board on August 27, 2013 is also annulled. The petitioners are
granted an award of costs and disbursements.
The within constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.
ENTER:
DATED: �R1ZC1� 2 3��OfS
DAVID B. OGMA
JUSTICE OF THE SU ME COURT
The Court is filing the original decision and order together with the original papers in the
appropriate County Cleric's Office. Attorney for Petitioners to comply with CPLR 2220.
Page 13 of 14
Distribution:
John W. Caffry, Esq.
Matthew F. Fuller, Esq,
Leah Everhart, Esq.
Page 14 of 14