Faden response to staff notes 45 STAM FIO UTE 9
LANSIN G"' " 'ENGINEERING, RC SUITE 30 1
MALTA NY 12020
F(5I8)8SS-5-245
February 22,2016 RECEIVED
Mr. Craig Brown FEB 2 3 2016
Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer
Town of Queensbury I OWINI 01" ('1UEj,`1qQE'
742 Bay Road OFFk
Queensbury,NY 12804 pr, ry
RE: Fallen Enterprises—75-79 Main Street Site Plan-Town of Queensbury
Dear Mr.Brown:
Lansing Engineering is pleased to submit this letter in response to the February 23, 2016 staff notes
prepared by Town of Queensbury Planning Board regarding the above noted project. The following
surnmarizes the comments followed by our response.
I Comment: Plans should reflect site measurements—road frontage,lot width,setback distance
from property line and centerline,
Response.- Theplans have been revised to include the site oneasuretnents,roadfrontage,lot
width,setback distancefront property here and centerline.
2.) Comment: Conlimn percentage landscaped nanative indicates lot I is 15.8%and lot 2 is 1O.9%
Plans indicated Lot I is 1'7,1%and Lot 2 is 18.4%.
Response.- The narrative has been revised to reflect the landscaping coveray gepereenlages
outlined on the plans.
3.) Comment: Confirm building height—application indicate 30 R and elevation indicate l7f1
Re."nse: The building is I 7jeet high.
4) Comment: Plans should include fencing detail...confirm fencing type is not chain link for refuse
enclosure.
Response.- The plaits have been revised to include the proposed slockadejence detail.
5.) Comment: Plans should reflect landscaping in phases,site conditions upon phase I completion.
Response.- Thephasing plan has been revised toshow the lanAcaping to be planted in phase
1.
6) Comment: Plans should reflect truck/delivery turning radius.
Response.- Theplan ns have been revised to include a track turtling radiusfor a 30'box truck,
which is the typical inaxinount sized delivery truck anticipated to service the uses on the site.
1,
7.) Comment: Plans should reflect cross easement language for parking arrangement between the
two parcels.
Response. Currently the applicanev attorney is working on the cross casement
language. Once it is completed it will be jorwardedfir your review.
8.) Comment: Rooftop mechanicals plans should show mechanicals location if not oil the roof,
Response.- Michanical Units)OU be located on the roof.
9.) Comment: Window transparency calculation should be provided for board review
Response:See calculations below.-
South Wall—
Wall Area to C eiting-658 SF
Glazing Area =446 SF
68% Transparency
West all—
0,14l1 Area to Ceiling=63 6 SF
Glazing Area=240 SF
38% Transparency
10) Comment: Window type should'he provided,
Response: The nindow type is Aluminum Storefront lVindowtv—X4 wneer 451 T or Equal —
Clear Anodized Aluminum Finish
11) Comment: Engineering connnents should be addressed.
Rqponse.-Attashed plearse see a copy of the comment response letter to the Town Engineer.
Attached is a copy of the revised site plans for your review and approval. Please do not hesitate to
contact tne at(5 18)899-5243 extension 104 if there are any questions or if any additional infonnation,is
needed, Than you.
Sincerely,
LAN93ING ENGINEERING, PC
Yates S t Lansing,PE,CPESC, CPSWQ
I t Lansing"I
cc: Russell Faden (Owner/Applicant)
2