Loading...
1993-02-24 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24TH. 1993 INDEX Use Variance No. 10-1993 Karen L. Sommer 1. Area Variance No. 11-1993 National Realty & Development Corporation 3. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 24TH. 1993 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN MARIE PALING THOMAS PHILO CHRIS THOMAS ROBERT KARPELES FRED CARVIN MEMBERS ABSENT JOYCE EGGLESTON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-ARLYNE RUTHSCHILD STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI NEW BUSINESS; USE VARIANCB NO. 10-1993 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-1A KARBN L. SOMMBR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF GLEN LAKE ROAD. NACY DRIVE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBSTITUTE PRESENT USE OF A GROCERY/DELICATESSEN STORE FOR A RESTAURANT IN A PRBEXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURB. PERMITTBD USES IN WATERFRONT RESIDBNTIAL 1 ACRE IS A SINGLB FAMILY DWELLING. CABIN. BOATHOUSE AND DOCK. AND CLEAR-CUTTING OF MORE THAN ONB (1) ACRE. APPLICANT'S PROPOSED USE IS A RESTAURANT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM PERMITTED USES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) TAX MAP NO. 44-1-1.22 LOT SIZE: 0.866 ACRES SECTION 179-16D KAREN SOMMER. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 10-1993. Karen L. Sommer, Meeting Date: February 24, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to substitute the present use of a grocery/delicatessen store for a restaurant in a preexisting nonconforming structure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Permitted uses in the Waterfront Residential 1 Acre zone are single family dwelling, cabin, boathouse and dock and clear-cutting of no more than one (1) acre. Applicant is proposing to operate a restaurant in an existing nonconforming structure and is seeking relief from the permitted uses. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. IS A REASONABLE RETURN POSSIBLE IF LAND IS USED AS ZONED? Both the structure and the use of the structure is preexisting and nonconforming and was originally constructed for commercial use. hence reasonable use of the land would appear not to be possible as zoned. 2. ARE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE LOT UNIQUE AND NOT DUE TO THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE ORDINANCE? The circumstances of the lot are unique to the degree that the use of the lot has always been commercial within a residential zone. 3. IS THERE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? It would appear that there would be no adverse effect on the character of the neighborhood by the proposed proj ect, as the parcel has been historically used as a commercial site. STAFF COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: The proposed change of use of the existing structure would appear to be consistent with the historical and commercial use of the building since the 1940' s and currently would be providing a service to a seasonal and growing year-round residential population. The parking spaces are adequate for the change of use." - 1 - I\., MR. TURNER-How many tables are you going to have, if you're going to have a sit down dining area, how many do you propose? MS. SOMMER-It's nothing set in stone, approximately eight. MR. TURNER-Eight. Do you sell beer there? MS. SOMMER-Do I now? MR. TURNER-Yes. MS. SOMMER-Yes. I have an off premises beer and wine. MR. TURNER-Are you going to have to change your license? MS. SOMMER-Yes. MR. TURNER-Does anyone have any other questions? This has been a restaurant since. MR. PHILO-Ever since I can remember. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. CARVIN-I don't have any comments. I just was wondering. there was a restaurant when I was out there, just up the street. That looked like it was closed. MS. SOMMER-That's the LaCabanna. MR. TURNER-That's the LaCabanna. MR. CARVIN-This one looked like it had a For Sale sign on it. MR. TURNER-Yes, it does. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. TURNER-That came after this, though. MR. CARVIN-That one came after this. Well, I didn't see any major problems. MR. TURNER-As far establ ished. It's between the cracks. that sense. Okay. as the use variance, the use has been been commercial. The only thing is, it falls It's just not permitted there. That's all, in Let me open the public hearing, then. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. TURNER-Any Correspondence? MRS. PALING-No. MR. TURNER-Okay. Motion's in order. MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 10-1993 KAREN L. SOHMER, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Marie Paling: The relief granted is for a Use Variance for a use not permitted in the zone. The structure is preexisting and nonconforming and has been and is now used as a commercial use. There are unique circumstances related to this piece of property. Although it's in a residential zone, it's been commercial since back in the 40's, as a restaurant, a bar, a tavern, years and years on end. There is no - 2 - adverse effect on the neighborhood opposition. neighborhood character. Parking is adequate. There is no Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1993 TYPE I HC-1A CROSS REF. SUB. NO. 3- 1993 SKETCH PLAN NATIONAL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OWNER: L. GROSSMAN. JR.. R. GROSSMAN. R. BAKER. W. RUBIN NYS. ROUTE 9. EXISTING AMES PLAZA. 1/2 MILE NORTH OF QUAKER ROAD ON WEST SIDE OF NYS ROUTE 9 APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS ON PROPOSED LOT. AND CONSTRUCT A RETAIL STORE WITH RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK IS THE SUM OF FIFTY (50) FEET WITH A MINIMUM OF TWENTY (20) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FIFTY (50) FEET ON THE SOUTH YARD AND ZERO (0) FEET ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF LOT. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY (20) FEET. REQUIRED PERMEABILITY IS THIRTY (30) PERCENT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FIFTEEN (15) PERCENT (PLUS OR MINUS) AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF FIFTEEN (15) PERCENT (PLUS OR MINUS). REQUIRED BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LOTS IS FIFTY (50) FEET. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET AT THE WESTERN SIDE OF PARCEL AND IS SEEKING RELIEF OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET. PARKING AREAS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE PLANTED DIVIDER STRIPS. FOR EACH ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY (150) PARKING SPACES. APPLICANT IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM PLANTED DIVIDER REQUIREMENT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3 LOT SIZE: 17.74 ACRES SECTION 179-23(C). 179-66(B)(3). 179-72A MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. TURNER-Before we read the application, I would make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE NEGATIVE DEC WHICH IS PART OF THE SEQRA REVIEW THAT WAS PASSED BY THE PLANNING BOARD LAST NIGHT. AS LEAD AGENCY, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Thomas: Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles. Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. TURNER-Let me just read that part, Maria, and you can put it in the record. "Resolved that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that is has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with the SEQRA as follows: 1. An environmental impact statement will not be required for the action, as the Planning Board has determined that there will be no significant effect or that identified environmental effects will not be significant for the following reasons: As outlined in our previous Part II review this evening." That sums it up. MRS. PALING-This is notes from the Warren County Planning Board. "At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board held on the 10th day of February 1993, the above application for an area variance to demolish existing buildings on proposed lot and construct a retail store with related infrastructure, it was reviewed, and the - 3 - I following action was taken, recommendation to approve. The WCPB has approved the variances to reduce the number of required planter dividers, 50 foot rear setback to the west, permeability, and the ) lot line setback. The Board also requires that the stormwater management plan be approved by Herb Steffens, of the New York State, and Fred Austin of Warren County. Also the Board requires the approval of the traffic study by New York State DOT before looking at the site plan review." STAFF INPUT Note s from Staff. Area Variance No. 11-1993, National Realty and Development Corp., Meeting Date: February 24, 1993 "SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Applicant is proposing to demolish existing buildings on proposed lot, and construct a retail store with related infrastructure. CONFORMANCE WITH USE/AREA REGULATIONS: 1. Required side yard setback is the sum of fifty (50) feet with a minimum of twenty (20) feet as per Section 179-23C. Applicant is proposing fifty (50) feet on the south side yard setback and zero (0) feet on the northern boundary of the lot. Applicant is seeking relief of twenty (20) feet. Required permeability is thirty (30) percent as per Section 179-23C. Applicant is proposing thirteen and nine tenths (13.9) percent permeability and is seeking sixteen and one tenth (16.1) percent relief. Required buffer between commercial and residential zones is fifty (50) feet as per Section 179-72A. Applicant is proposing twenty-five feet buffer at the western side of the parcel and is requesting twenty-five (25) feet relief. Parking areas are required to have planted divider strips for each one hundred and fifty (150) parking spaces (proposed 641 parking spaces = 4 strips) as per Section 179-66(B)(3). Applicant is proposing no planted divider strips and is seeking relief of one hundred (100) percent. REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. DESCRIBE THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A STRUCTURE THAT MEETS ZONING REQUIREMENTS. A. SIDE YARD SETBACK The proposed project will be sited on the southern parcel of a proposed two (2) lot subdivision. Proposed placement of the structure will share a common wall with an existing retail store on the northern parcel of the subdivision, resulting in a zero (0) foot north side yard setback. Applicant's argument for support of the practical difficul ty assumes the proposed size of the structure to be a necessity and does not explore the possibility of down-sizing the project in order to comply with side yard setback requirements and to that degree may be considered a self created difficulty. B. PERMEABILITY The practical difficulty arises from proposed size of the structure, access drives and proposed parking spaces reducing permeable area to below required standards. Although the applicant defends their argument for greater than fifty (50) percent reduction of the permeability criteria on the basis that the broader intention of the standard is to limit stormwater runoff generated on the site, (which will be managed by a proposed stormwater management system) the applicant does not address the attendant need to provide adequate groundwater recharge areas. C. BUFFER The practical difficulty rests with proposed on-site delivery route for the proposed store intruding an existing fifty (50) foot buffer along the western boundary of the property, which has an existing encroachment of the buffer of one hundred and ninety (190) feet on the north western side of the buffer by the existing retail store. Cumulative encroachment would be twenty- five by nine hundred and twelve and five tenths (25 x 912.5) feet, almost the entire width of the western and rear yard boundary of the parce 1 ( s ) . D. The practical di ff icul ty regarding complying with the Planted Divider Strip requirement is related to the number of proposed parking spaces, access routes and existing parking, essentially eliminating the area required for the planted divider strips. Although the applicant mentions that the existing parking area does not have planted divider strips, applicant does not either address the myriad reason for the requirement (aesthetics. permeability, filtering of air pollutants, etc.) nor proposes any mi tigating strategies to address these issues. 2. IS THIS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE SPECIFIED PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY OR IS THERE ANY OPTION AVAILABLE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE NO - 4 - VARIANCE? A. SIDE YARD SETBACK It would appear that the minimum variance (in this case the maximum variance) is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as proposed structure. parking spaces and access routes require placement of structure wi thout a north side yard setback on proposed site without a variance. B. PERMEABILITY It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficul ty regarding compliance with permeability standards as design of proposed project maximizes impermeable coverage of the proposed site, and as such, limits any practical option for placement without a variance. However, applicant does not explore the possibility of reducing the proposed number of parking spaces (621) to permitted number (580) which would make available seven thousand three hundred and eighty (7,380) square feet that could be allocated to increase vegetative cover or partially comply with the planted divider strip requirement, either of which would increase the permeable area of the parcel. C. BUFFER It would appear that the minimum variance is necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty as proposed placement of structure is at the edge of the rear yard buffer. Proposed unloading dock and on-site delivery route necessitates encroachment into the existing buffer and given the proposed placement of project eliminates the possibility of a practical option that would require no variance. D. PLANTED DIVIDER STRIPS As the applicant is requesting total relief from the Planted Divider Strip requirement, the relief requested would be the maximum variance necessary to alleviate the specified practical difficulty and as proposed, project leaves no practical option available which would require no variance. However, as applicant does not provide data regarding the perceived need for extra parking spaces, this extra footage could partially fulfill the planted divider strip requirement." MR. TURNER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm Michael O'Connor from the Law Firm of Little & O'Connor. I'm here this evening representing National Realty, which is the applicant. With me is William White from Flint Engineering, who is the Planning and Engineering Consultant for Wal-Mart, and Bill's probably will address the exact application in detail, and probably in more detail than I will, because I think he's done some 25 of these for Wal-Mart and is familiar with the project and what he proposes is not unlike what he's proposed in other communi ties across the northeast. Also with us is Shelly Johnston from Transportation Concepts, who has done the traffic study for the project, in case the Board has any questions with regard to the traffic study. If I might, before we begin, I'd like to go back a little bit and just give you an idea of how we evolved to the point that we are at today, and where we seem to think we are going. There were some preliminary meetings, and there was a preliminary plan that was drafted. a little different than this draft here. The big difference in the preliminary draft was that along the south boundary to the property. this side here, there was a row of parking which encroached upon the 50 foot buffer area. After meeting with some of these adj oining property owners, that was eliminated from the particular project. Also, even the plan that is there has evolved a little bit, and I'll let Bill White explain that to you, from what was submitted to you, based upon the various Boards that we have made appearances before, to get to this point here. We spent two and a half hours last night with the Planning Board, here, going through the same project on the SEQRA Review, explaining in detail what we were doing, and whether or not this had any impacts on the environmental point of view, and much of that I will probably repeat today. We, besides meeting with the residents, met informally with the County Planning Board, simply to explain to them what we were doing. We then went to the County, formally, and met with them on the question of SEQRA, they deferred to the Planning Board on that. They also considered the variance application that you're considering tonight, and their recommendation after our presentation and discussion was a - 5 - recommendation of approval. We will be going back to the County Planning Board for site plan review. Tonight, doesn't mean, if we get our approvals, that we can go ahead and begin construction. We have also gone to the Queensbury Beautification Committee, which is a little bit out of order, but we wanted to go to them as soon as we could, so that we could address the questions of whether or not we would have an aesthetic impact because of what we were proposing, and we wanted to present to them our landscaping plan. We did that at a formal meeting, and we did obtain their approval, and I believe that that's in your packet. MR. TURNER-We've got it right here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So, they do have a recommendation recommending approval of our application, as we have submitted it, based upon the landscaping plan that we have made part of the application. We also spoke with Hike Shaw from the sewer district, and I mention that as a complete aside, and I guess it is of importance, because we are talking about permeability, and one of the humps to permeability, perhaps, is site drainage, and the separation of site drainage from septic. We are talking about an extension of the sewer district to serve this property. It will serve all of the uses on the property, including the Wal-Mart, the existing Ames store, and the existing restaurant. MR. PHILO-Mike, does that mean that you're going to hook into the Town sewer? MR. O'CONNOR-There would be a sewer district extension. That has to go through the Town Board. We have to make application to them. We or they have to obtain some easements from the individual pri vate owners, from Mr. B' s Best, north. There are about four properties that we will be going past to get to our property. When we do become a member of the sewer district, we will be a substantial member, with our square footage and with our acreage, and it will be of some benefit to the other people within the sewer district, as to the spreading of cost that they have, the capital expense, and we will pay the normal operating maintenance of that. MR. PHILO-That's what was asked by quite a few neighbors up there, to me. Can you hook the DI's in that drain, too? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think you can put anything in there. MR. TURNER-No stormwater. MR. O'CONNOR-No stormwater. MR. PHILO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We had also met with the Fire Marshal, Kip Grant, and wi th the Chief of the Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Department, and showed him our proposed plan, and I asked whether or not they had any concerns. They had one minor concern, and that was a turning radius at the southeast corner of the building, and we have modified our proposed parking so that we accommodate their concern. They were afraid if they set up immediately to the face of the building. and for some reason had to change that equipment, and go across the face of the building and around to the back, as opposed to coming in from Route 9, they wouldn't have a good turning radius. So we've accommodated that, and again we will go back to that issue, and we will get their written approval when we go through site plan. As I indicated to you, we have been to the Planning Board, and we will have to go back to the Planning Board, hopefully with your approval, for subdivision approval, to create the two lots that we're talking about. and for site plan approval, which at that time we'll have actual engineering construction drawings. We have been, as the County has suggested, already been in contact with New York State DOT and submitted to them. and maybe you have in your packets some of their correspondence. - 6 - MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We had submitted to them a traffic study. They, in fact, came back and said we were too conservative with the traffic study. That they wanted us to use a lower rate of trip generation for the study, and revise the traffic study per their direction, and we have resubmitted that. They have that in their hands. They are reviewing that. Shelly can address that. We have submitted everything that we've done to date, including the concept for infiltration for the stormwater drainage to the Town Engineer, and last night Rist-Frost, through Tom Yarmowich, reported to the Planning Board that he was satisfied that the concept that we had presented was a workable concept. We have done some extensive testing on the soil. We have done a number of test holes. We have an idea the depth of the soil and the groundwater level and all that, that we need to go forward. So basically that's where we have been. I guess I would ask Bill to explain in detail our proposal, and what I've said to you is I would bring you forward, historically, a couple of the comments I've seen, Staff Comments. I think we've addressed, because at one time, and I'll jump just to the point. We were showing some excess parking, based upon the remains that Wal-Mart had, based upon a lengthy and very strong suggestion by, Staff and by different Boards, that would be the Planning Board of the County of the Planning Board of the Town, we have incorporated that area into now greenspace, and we show that up here, but I won't necessarily get into that, and I think maybe if we just walked through each variance, you can ask us some questions on each one, that might be the best way to do it. MR. TURNER-Yes. BILL WHITE MR. WHITE-I'd like to just po int out, quickly, some of those changes that were initiated through our review with the County Planning and the Planning Staff. I'll just go through them quickl y, because they' re relative 1 y small, but I think one of them's of pretty good importance. One is the addition of a planted divider strip. This is different than on the plans that you have with the variance application, but the input, you can see, we've added this planted divider strip. We have removed seven spaces in this area here, provided some additional greenspace in this area, added a divider strip in this area here, to sort of separate the parking divides between Queen Diner and the Ames parcel. We grounded this radius here and took out some of the parking in this area as well, adding additional greenspace and further buffering of the residents to the southeast. MR. PHILO-Quite a few of the neighbors came over and asked me, on the end of Greenway Drive, are they going to open that up? Will they ever open that up? MR. WHITE-Open up the road so that a vehicle could actually pass through? No. I'm not sure that that's, none of the residents have asked us that question, if we could do that. so I don't think that's something that anyone's really attracted to at this point. MR. O'CONNOR-They have asked us whether there's a, there's a chain link fence that divides that side of the property and our property, or the developer's property, and there's an opening right next to Dan Olson's house. MR. PHILO-I owned the house across there. MR. 0' CONNOR-Okay. They've asked us whether we will keep that open, and we've indicated that we would keep that open. They indicate that they prefer to see it open. They use it to be able to walk over to that site. MR. PHILO-But they're never going to put a road in there? - 7 - '\ \ - MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. PHILO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the basic site plan that we will submit to the Town Planning Board. We can't change that and make some ma j or change like that without going back through site plan review and site plan approval. That's not something we can just simply do. MR. WHITE-I guess I'll go through the four variances that we've requested in a little more detail, at this point, and I thought I'd take them in order that we have presented them. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's fine. MR. WHITE-I'll start with the zero foot side yard variance. This indicates what we are seeking relief on. The proposed property line between the two stores is shown dotted on our site plan. It jogs around the loading docks to the Wal-Mart store, comes in, and in this area here, and only this area, is where we're requesting relief. We have two buildings that abut each other, and therefore zero side yard setback in this area here. The property line then follows down through in here. I'll go through the four reasons why we feel the relief is justified, the first being practical difficul ty. One of the reasons we feel we have some difficulty with the site is we have a preexisting condition. The way the site is today, I'll show you the existing site plan. We have the existing Ames store, the buildings that abut the existing Ames store. so it's really no different than if we were to draw a property line down through that point right now. The other thing is that the National Realty, the owner of the entire plaza at this point, does have a long term lease with Ames, and for that reason, cannot acquire that. They wish to remain a tenant of National Realty. So we have to subdivide the property. That is a long term lease and we have provided a letter to the Planning Board with the specifics of that lease, but I think it's something like 20 years or so. So it's quite a ways into the future. MR. O'CONNOR-It runs to 2003, with three 4 year extensions, which would go to 2015. MR. WHITE-And in the hardship, we have no right to terminate that lease, thus creating the need to subdivide the parcel. What we considered initially was trying to provide an area in between these two buildings, but we're restricted on the south end of our property where we could pull the Wal-Mart store over this way, but we have a 50 foot buffer requirement on the south end, and we need to provide adequate, we have a drive right at the 50 foot line, and we need to provide an adequate fire lane back through the parcel. So, we have this, come this way, so we would be able to separate the buildings 40 feet, something that would lead us to a request for another variance, if we were to have to go into this area, and I think that, as an option, would have a greater impact on these residents, so we chose to just abut these two buildings. In regards to the question, is this the minimum variance necessary, we believe it is, and we're asking for relief only in this area. We're not asking for a zero side yard setback in any other area of the site, on this property or this side. We are maintaining a five foot lawn area around the perimeter of the entire site, although it's not provided along the subdivision line. As far as, is the variance detrimental to other properties, or will it effect any public services, we see no reason there would be a detriment to any other property, or effect any public service. Our feeling is that we're just adding this to accommodate an on-site condition, and accommodate the subdivision of the parcel. Before I go on to the next variance, are there any questions on this one? MR. CARVIN-I just have one. You say the Ames lease is roughly a 20 year lease? Okay, actually, it could terminate in 2003, is that correct, and then Ames has the option? - 8 - (--\ ~, MR. O'CONNOR-They have the option. MR. CARVIN-Okay. What if Ames goes out of business? What happens then? MR. WHITE-Then I believe National Realty, who still owns that parcel, will have to evaluate their alternatives on what they do, if they can tear that building down and get another tenant for that building. MR. CARVIN-Okay, how, I guess without asking a real, because I know Ames was in Chapter 11. How did would that effect something like this? MR. WHITE-This particular Ames store, the people from Ames have been notified and they're cooperating with us and are actually quite enthusiastic about the proposal, because they know it's going to bring shoppers into the Center. They feel that this particular location for them is in a very good location. This is a very viable site for them. I can't tell you what the long term outlook for Ames is. It's a Corporation. but I can tell you that this particular store appears to be doing quite well, and there's no known plan for a. MR. PHILO-Where you put those two buildings, you're going to back it right up to the other building, right? It's going to be right tight to that? MR. WHITE-Yes. There's an area here where we may have to provide a small separation in between the buildings, because there's some doors that come out in this area. The mechanical equipment for the Ames store is in this corner here, and we may have to jog out this area of the Wal-Mart store, and we're evaluating with the architects who are working with the Ames people here, how we can best accommodate that condition. MR. PHILO-Say if you're going to have a brick veneer, or something of that style, and you put it right next to the wall, if this building goes down, what are they going to do with the end of your building, if they do take that down? There won't be any way to finish the end of that building. MR. WHITE-We're not planning for it to go down, but if it were, I would assume that we would go in and refinish the building similar to the facade of the other three faces of the building, with the split face concrete block. MR. PHILO-You've seen towns and buildings where they have one building right next to the other, and then the other one. they take it down. You've got a rough environment. MR. WHITE-Wal-Mart' s very sensi ti ve about that type of stuff. They're very, they want to have a nice appearing store, and I think they do, and I think if you've seen any pictures of a Wal-Mart store, you'll see it's fairly attractive building. MR. PHILO-I understand the building looks nice, but I'm saying, they've got a problem there, as he says, when they take that, if they ever go out of business, they're in a Chapter 11, and say they do take that building down, backed up against that building, tight against that building, they can't finish it, even if it is a masonry. MR. O'CONNOR-You have to understand, Ames is the tenant, National Realty is the owner of that, and National Realty will continue to own that site. National Real ty is probably one of the larger family held shopping center, commercial real estate developers in northern New York or most of New York. I didn't bring it with me, but I have the pamphlet, as to projects that they have that's probably about as thick as this here. They started this site, I - 9 - think, in the 1970's, and they really have done a great number of sites since then. It's a family by the name of Baker that runs National Realty. They're big in Westchester. They're big in mostly the greater Massachusetts, Connecticut. MR. WHITE-Yes. They're in 17 different States, at this point, in over 140 different shopping centers. MR. O'CONNOR-They're quite an operation. So if Ames were out of there, they are going to be a separate parcel next door to them, and they will find a viable tenant. That's part of this project. They have right now, a shopping center that was built in 1970, and is do for revitalization, and recycling. There is a need to spend a great deal of money there, and this is a way to bring in a quality type person and do the recycling and rejuvenation at the same time. MR. PHILO-Do you see what I'm saying, Mike, if they ever did? MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at St. Mary's wall, St. Mary's wall on the west, St. Mary's School on the west side, when urban renewal came and took down all the buildings on the west side of it, we ended up putting a face wall tied into the old wall, and that happens, in Downtown, the City of Glens Falls, everything is zero lot line. That's the way they build the commercial buildings. MR. PHILO-So the neighbors wouldn't have a sore eye, in case they went bankrupt and they, I don't think they'd demolish that building. Is there any way we could protect that or something, they would veneer that side with something? MR. TURNER-Well, you know, that's hypothetical, Tom. MR. PHILO-I'm just saying. MR. TURNER-You're dealing with something that's in the future, that you don't even know is going to happen. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the economy of the site is going to make them do that. They're going to have to have an attractive site. They're not going to have something that is going to be an eyesore, and when they go to rebuild, if they ever, even if that was destroyed by fire, it's to their benefit to build immediately next to it, because then they don't have to finish the outside of their south wall. If they wanted to build 10 feet away from it, they'd have to finish the outside of the wall. They'd also use up their space. MR. PHILO-Okay. MR. CARVIN-Do you know what the Ames square footage is? MR. WHITE-Seventy thousand square feet. MR. CARVIN-That's 70,000, and is this, the plan for the Wal-Mart, is this a typical store? Is this a large store or a small store? MR. WHITE-Yes. Wal-Mart has what they call pro-type bUildings. They have 71,000 square foot store, a 93,000 square foot store, and a 116,000 square foot store. This is a 116,000 square foot store. Now this store, though, when they build the other stores, and even some of the 116 proto's, they have accommodations for future expansion of approximately 30 or 58,000 square feet. For this particular site, they don't have that ability to expand, which is one of the reasons they want, first of all, their market analysis tells them they need this size store. Second of all, they want to be able to accommodate future growth and future expansion possibilities. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now when you say expansion, does that mean adding - 10 - on to this existing store, or would that be absorbing the existing Ames, if the Ames, in 10 years, decides not to renew? MR. WHITE-I can't rule that out as a possibility, in 10 years from now if Ames goes out of business and National offers the property to Wal-Mart, and the deal can be worked out, that's a possible scenario. Right now, though. Wal-Mart fee ls that the 116,000 square foot store will meet their current needs. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KARPELES-Are all your stores one story? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. KARPELES-You don't have any two story stores? MR. WHITE-There may be some real old ones that are out there, but any that have been built in recent years. MR. KARPELES-I see it's 29 feet high. That seems pretty high for a one story. How high is the Ames? MR. WHITE-The Ames is closer to 20 to 25. So, it'll be about five feet higher. MR. KARPELES-The reason I'm asking is it just appears that all these questions about variance and so forth, that if you went up in the area, then maybe you could eliminate most of the variances you're requesting, and get the same square footage that you require. MR. WHITE-Well, actually with this store layout, it's a flat roof. and they have steel trusses for the roofing systems. So that takes a couple of feet off there, and once you get into, you have your mechanical equipment that you also hang from that, you have lighting that you hang from that, so actually the clear, from finished floor to roof, is only probably in the teens. MR. TURNER-Is all the mechanical equipment going to be inside? No roof top units. MR. WHITE-There will be roof top fence, but the actual mechanical equipment will be inside. MR. TURNER-That's what I'm talking about, the equipment. MR. PHILO-They had enough trouble with Zayres on that. MR. KARPELES-I guess maybe I didn't make myself clear. that if you went two stories, maybe you wouldn't variances, and I wonder if that's been investigated? I'm saying have any MR. WHITE-It hasn't been investigated, because Wal-Mart does have these prototypical buildings that they've found to be successful, and that's what they build. MR. TURNER-Okay. Continue. MR. WHITE-The impermeable area variance. I want to make sure that you see the map of the existing site, because I think it's important to realize what we have on the site right now. The entire site is 17.74 acres, including the existing Ames store, the entire property boundary. There's currently 102,000 square feet of building, 203,000 square feet of asphalt paving, a ratio of approximately two to one. The buildings are 2.43 acres, and the asphal t is about 4.660. The important thing, though, is that there's 620 parking spaces that are out here right now. There's no provisions for stormwater drainage, no landscaped islands, no buffers, no landscaping. It looks like a Center that was built in - 11 - 1978, and currently would not meet the Town Code requirements. Now, under the proposed conditions, I want to go a Ii ttle bit further and describe to you how we have changed the plan since we initially brought it to the Town. As Mike mentioned, we've moved all these parking spaces. We've added landscaping in the end islands here. We've added sort of a divider strip in this area and a divider strips in this area. So we've divided it up so that the impermeable area is about maxed out here. There's no way that we can provide additional impermeable area without reducing the parking, the Town Code requirement. The application that you have I think makes reference to 41 or so additional parking spaces, but as the plans evolve, the addition of planted divider strips, elimination of this parking area here, elimination of parking here and a divider strip here have brought us right down to 5.0 spaces per 1,000. So really the area of permeability has increased by the addi tion of some of these areas, and the correct numbers now, I think 13.9 may have been the number in the original application. We're up to, for the entire site, we're up to 15.0 percent, and to go beyond the 15.0 percent doesn't seem like something we can do without bringing the parking ratio down below five spaces per thousand, thus creating the need for an additional variance. I think we also need to look at this as by parcel, too. Once we've divided this into two parcels, how much is permeable on this side versus how much is permeable on this side, and I've gone through some calculations to figure that as well. The Ames parcel, this side of the Center, is 6.45 acres below. It has .62 acres of pervious area. and 5.83 acres of impervious area. So as a percentage, the Ames parcel is 9.6 percent pervious, and 90.4 percent impervious. The Wal-Mart parcel, in contrast to that, is 11.2 acres total. It has 18.1 percent pervious material and 81.9 percent impervious. So, we're a little bit higher, on a ratio, on the Wal-Mart side than we are on the Ames side, actually considerably higher, almost twice as much, as a percentage. Going into our actual justification, our practical difficulty, and I really think our biggest reason, practical difficulty. is that we cannot provide enough parking spaces. If we provide an additional permeable area, you would be below the 5.0 spaces per 1,000 required by the Town, and I don't think that's a good thing. First of all, it's not a good thing for a Wal-Mart or Ames. Secondly, it's not a good thing for the Town, because you're going to have people coming to park, not being able to get into the parking lot, and it's going to be a very inefficient and unattractive place to shop. So I think everybody loses under that scenario. I mentioned a little bit, we talked a little bit about the size of the store. They do have smaller stores, and probably the first thing that comes to everybody's mind is, well build a smaller store. We can't build a smaller store because we've done quite a bit of extensive market research, and this area, the Queensbury/Glens Falls area, has the population density and the demographics to support a store of this size. It actually probably has the demographics to support a larger store, but this is the largest prototype that won't Wal- Mart constructs. Using a smaller store, it wouldn't work for Wal- Mart, and it's not our possibi 1 i ty, in thi s case. They would select a different site before they were able to decrease the square footage, because it's sort of an opportunity cost for them. They have an ability to come into this market and generate enough revenue and do enough business to support a 116,000 square foot store. Why should they have to live with a smaller store when they could possibly, hopefully, find another suitable site for this, and that's not to say Wal-Mart doesn't want to be at this site. They've investigated several other sites in the Queensbury area, and for one reason or another weren't able to come up with a feasible plan or come to an attractive real estate deal for Wal- Mart, but this site seemed to meet all the requirements, and another thing with, the reason why we feel we have a practical difficulty and are justified some relief on this is really a look at the intent of the Ordinance, and the 30 percent requirement. We're doing a couple of things a little bit different on this site than you may other sites in your area, and we believe that the intent of the Ordinance is to do two things, one is to provide an - 12 - (- '-- adequate area for stormwater drainage, and secondly it's to provide an area for landscape, beautification of site. So, we've done a little bit of homework on that. On the stormwater drainage system, we've prepared an engineering concept that infiltrates stormwater back into the ground, and what it does is it would have a series of catch basins and infiltration basins that would collect the runoff from the site and return it, after it goes through a sump to get rid of all the potential pollutants, and return it back into the groundwater. Therefore, we don't have the need for a large extension pump. We reviewed that concept and submitted calculations to the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer has reviewed it and agrees with the plan in concept. They'll do a more detailed review if we get to the site plan review stage, but we've given them enough information at this point, and we've done enough investigation of the soils ourselves to know that we have a feasible working system and we don't need that land area for stormwater detention like you may on other sites. MR. PHILO-What is the percolation of that soil right there? MR. WHITE-The actual percolation rate? It's something like 2 times 10 to the minus three centimeters per second. It's very sandy material. I was out, and I actually witnessed them doing some of the test pits on the site. They dug down to a 15, 20 foot depth, and hit sand all the way down. They did not hit bedrock. They did not hit groundwater. So, we're very fortunate, from that standpoint, to have on site soils that accommodate the type of engineering, drainage systems that we have. MR. O'CONNOR-It's also true, isn't it, Bill, and a point that might be made is that even with the less permeable soils, there is going to be better drainage after construction than there is presently. There will be no more, at the high peak times, off site drainage than what there presently is. During most casual storms or smaller storms, this site will have no off site drainage. Right now this site has complete off site drainage. It has no on site drainage. MR. PHILO-It's all pitched to the road. MR. O'CONNOR-It's all pitched to the road. This will have a collection system that will drain within the site. MR. KARPELES-Is that going to be true for Ames, too, or just the Wal-Mart? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. WHITE-One of the things we're going to do is, by the way, is not necessarily related to the variance, but we are going to go over and reconstruct Ames parking lot and provide new storm drainage in their parking lot and provide lighting in the entire parking lot, rejuvenate the entire site. MR. PHILO-That's going to help clean up that Hovey's ice pond. They were just figuring the drain off from that coming down Glen Street hill, and they're even talking about putting a collection pi t in there, there was so much coming off that parking lot. That'll make a big difference. MR. WHITE-The other intent, that we feel is the intent of the Ordinance, is to provide the adequate area for landscaping. and that's why we went to the Beautification Committee, as Mike said, a little bit out of order, but we wanted to get their input. Because we have very large areas of asphalt paving and not a lot of planted divider strips, what we're trying to do is compensate for that by providing greater quality of plants, rather than a greater quantity of plantings, and we've met with them and reviewed the plant materials, the size of the plants and the location of the plants in detail, and we had them grant their approval on this plan from a Beautification standpoint, indicating that it's met their - 13 - ("'- .~ standards as well. So we felt we've met the intent of the Ordinance. We don't meet the numbers, but we do feel that we've met the intention of the Ordinance by providing the stormwater systems and a greater quality of. MR. CARVIN-Could I just interrupt here? I have a couple of questions. The solid buffer along the, I'm assuming that's along the property line? MR. WHITE-This here? MR. CARVIN-No, in the center. HR. WHITE-This one? MR. CARVIN-Yes. that you added. Will cars be able to go between the two, or is that going to be a solid separation? MR. WHITE-It's a planted divider strip. planted in it, a concrete curb on both foot area in the middle, and a car would park up to it that way. It's going to have trees sides, with about a five park up to it this way or MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, in other words, without going all the way around, there's no way that a car could traverse from one side to the other? MR. WHITE-The only way that a car could gain access is through here, or through here. MR. CARVIN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That is not on the property line. That is off set to the property line. There's one set of parking on the north side of that planted divider that actually will be owned by Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart and the National Realty will have interchanging easements and allow them to go across each other's parking lot for ingress and egress. I just don't want to mislead you, that that is the property line. MR. CARVIN-Yes. No, I wasn't sure whether they were just going to be trees with. MR. O'CONNOR-It's going to be a raised planted divider. MR. CARVIN-Okay. So, with limited access to either side? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. WHITE-One of the other reasons that this, a planning issue, one of the things that drove us to locate the island where it is is that the Planning Board was concerned about cut through traffic, people coming down Weeks Road and coming in thi s direction, and what this does is it provides, it's a nice location for it because it provides a nice barrier to sort of deter people from heading this direction here, and utilizing the main highways. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Now you say Wal-Mart will add improvements to the Ames side. Is that correct? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Okay, at Wal-Mart's expense? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. CARVIN-Why would they do that? MR. WHITE-It all comes out in the wash. It's structured into their rental agreement. They pay the up front cost and consideration - 14 - for. MR. PHILO-I'm very happy to hear that you're putting a sewer up through there. MR. CARVIN-Wait a minute. Who's paying rent? MR. WHITE-I'm sorry, not rent, no, actually in the purchase price of the land. Wal-Mart' s. Ames pays rent to National Realty who owns the Center. Wal-Mart owns it. I don't know the specifics of the deal. but I'm sure that what happened here, and what's happened in a lot of cases when Wal-Mart deals with developers like this, is they'll do the construction cost and it's taken off the price of the land cost. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Does Wal-Mart, in any of the negotiations with National, to the best of your knowledge, have any covenants that should Ames go out, that certain businesses are prevented from moving in, in other words, National can't rent to another retail operation or, are there business restrictions placed on National as part of this sale? MR. WHITE-Not to my knowledge, and I understand what you're talking about. because that's fairly common thing that retailers have, and to be honest with you, I don't know the answer to that question, and there may be some, but I would think in this case there would not be, especially when you have two retailers who are going into a market where they know that there isn't a retail. MR. CARVIN-Well, Wal-Mart realizes maybe they can't budge them off a 10 year lease. I mean, that might be one way of looking at that, so that they have a bed partner already. However, if that bed partner should change, that they want to make sure that they want to have some kind of control, as to who gets into that site. MR. WHITE-I wouldn't be surprised if there is some type of an agreement like that. MR. O'CONNOR-If it were a change away from retail, that change would have to be approved by the Planning Board as a new site plan, if that's one of your questions. MR. CARVIN-My point is, I think the ultimate direction that we're heading is we're creating two lots. here, that are nonconforming. Is that correct? MR. O'CONNOR-They're nonconforming only in that, the zero lot line setback. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but the entire lot, at this point, is conforming, is that correct? MR. WHITE-There's no planted divider strips. MR. CARVIN-Well, no, I'm saying, this plaza. MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. I would think that that probably meets all setbacks, all side line setbacks. MR. CARVIN-Okay, but in essence, we are separating and creating two, and I think this was brought up in the January minutes, here, and I have to agree with the gentleman, are we creating a monster, here, with two sets of variances? MR. O'CONNOR-Every time you give a variance, you create a nonconforming lot. Every application before this Board creates a nonconforming lot or use of some nature. MR. TURNER-That's right. This is not the first instance of a zero line setback in the Town. - 15 - - MR. CARVIN-Okay. Where? MR. TURNER-Evergreen Park. MR. 0' CONNOR-I think the offices with zero lot operations. Town did improve the development of line setbacks, like condominium type MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I created a brand new zone. in an adjoining town, for Plaza Commercial, built arQund zero sidehline.s~tbacks. Stores, when they're constructing, do not want to ave ~n netween gaps now. It gives them kind of like the appearance of a mall. even though they are a separate freestanding building, as opposed to having gaps between buildings. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WHITE-The minimum variance necessary, we feel it is the minimum variance necessary. We've provided as much space as we can to hold the parking ratio at 5.0 spaces per 1,000. If we were to ask for a larger variance, we would reduce the number of spaces that we could provide, and then we would not be in compliance with the Town Ordinance for parking spaces. So, it's sort of a Catch-22. Is the request detrimental to other properties? We believe not. We believe it's actually a benefit, in that the stormwater infiltration system will decrease stormwater runoff during the smaller storms, and I don't want to get real technical on you, but the way this system works is it's designed for a 50 year storm, which is the Town design criteria, and at the 50 year storm, when that happens historically once every 50 years, the amount of runoff will not increase, and it won't decrease either, but the smaller storms that happen every year will be absorbed, all that water would be absorbed and the rate of runoff from that would be substantially less than what you have today, with sheet runoff, pretty much sheet runoff the entire site. MR. TURNER-Bill, the roof leaders, going into the stormwater system? MR. WHITE-Yes. These have roof leaders that come off the back and they just sort of discharge out onto the pavement. MR. TURNER-Yes, right. MR. PHILO-Surface. MR. WHITE-Yes. Here we're going to collect them in a storm sewer system and direct it to the infiltration basins that will be scattered throughout the site. MR. TURNER-So that'll go to the tank first? MR. WHITE-Yes. This area here. MR. TURNER-The roof leaders? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. TURNER-They'll come off the roof, go down through the piping system, to the tank. and out through the filtration system? MR. WHITE-Yes. As far as the effect on public services, here we don't see any negative effect, other than the granting of the variance would provide greater accessibility to public sewers. and we'd have a sewer extension, and granting of the variance would also create some additional tax revenue for the Town. So that they could provide this public sewer system. Any questions on the permeability variance? - 16 - MR. TURNER-Not yet. I think that might come up where the. planted divider strips. MR. WHITE-Do you want me to go to that one next? MR. TURNER-No. Go to the next one. Go to the buffer. MR. WHITE-Okay. A 50 foot rear setback variance. As Mike indicated, at one point we had that on both the south side and the west side. We only now have it on the south side, that abuts the apartment complex. Actually, it abuts two garages, before it abuts the actually building structure. The practical difficulty that we feel we have there is that we need to provide a sufficient area for emergency vehicles, along the rear here, and we also need it for truck deliveries as well. The size of the building dictates that there be access around the perimeter of the Center. So we could just cut off this far lane and just have access along two sides. One of the things we could consider is pushing this building this way, and bringing everything beyond the 50 foot buffer line. but then again, we'd get to tight on the parking. Another option we might consider is. well, could we do a different building configuration and keep it the same size. We can't move the building this way, and we can't move the building this way. So we're sort of restricted in two dimensions. This way would take us into the buffer. This way we'd lose the parking. MR. KARPELES-But you could take it up. It's 40 feet. Forty feet is allowable. MR. PHILO-Square foot price. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd make one point. I don't think we have a two story retail store in the Town of Queensbury, of recent vintage. Any of the malls that we have had built, any of the malls that have been approved, all are single stories, and that would be the competition in this market. I think it may be a great disadvantage to them, and I just don't think, it's not a possibility. They don't build that two story. MR. KARPELES-That is a disadvantage? I didn't realize that was a disadvantage. MR. 0' CONNOR-Well, if you take a look at everybody who's come along. MR. KARPELES-Well, maybe they didn't need as many variances, and they could do it as one, or as many parking places. MR. WHITE-But we still have 116,000 square feet of usable space. MR. O'CONNOR-You would still need as much parking. Your parking, by square footage. MR. KARPELES-Well, you're automatically, if you reduce and you're going to reduce reduce your zero clearance. going to have more parking space the area that you're, the ground area, your setbacks, and you're go ing to MR. O'CONNOR-But it's not something that Wal-Mart would do. MR. KARPELES-If they don't compromise, I think that they have to be pretty selective about the kind of lot that they buy, to make sure that it accommodates the building. MR. O'CONNOR-I think when you get into an area variance you have a balancing act, as to what impacts you have by the requested variance, and I think we can show that with the on-site drainage, we've mitigated any loss of drainage possibility, because we do not have the green space or permeable. If you take a close look at the planting plan as we submitted to the Beautification Committee, we - 17 - - have beefed up the planting plan. In particular, we've beefed it up along Route 9, to the point that we have not affected the site aesthetically. So, we've taken care of drainage and we've taken care of drainage, I don't know what other purpose that particular element has within our Ordinance. MR. KARPELES-Well, aesthetics is a matter of opinion. In your opinion you've taken care of it, but it doesn't comply with the Zoning requirement. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, in the opinion of the Planning Board we've also taken care of it. In the ir SEQRA Review last night, they had. a specific section under impact on aesthet1c resources, and-tbey Q1Q not think that we had a negative impact. That was their finding after analysis of the project, and that is something that you have delegated to them, by delegating the lead agency status to them. It's argumentative, and it is subjective, and you may have a different opinion that I do, and you may have a different opinion than the Planning Board has, but I think we have addressed those issues, and I think that we've answered them, and if you take a look at the permeability, the percentages, you'll also want to take a look, in comparison, of the old site and the new site. The figure that's going to be the astounding figure is the Ames parcel, which is 9. something. If you take a look, this the Ames parcel right here. It comes over and down here. This is as it exists right now, and the only difference in what we're dOing is we're eliminating this green area up in here. We are, in fact, creating some green area along here, more green area along here, more green area right there. So, if you weren't going to build something, and you just went to the Town and asked to subdivide the existing buildings, you would probably have less green space on that particular lot right now than what we are going to propose when we're all said and done. If you look over here, this is where we get into the green area, and the use of green area, but that really has very little benefit to the Ames parcel, as it's going to exist now or as it's going to exist afterwards. That's remote from that, and this area over here, we're in excess, I think, of almost 16 percent, 16 something percent. I think you're going to hear a presentation, maybe, by the QBA later as to what might be reasonable in an area where a project is sewered, because there's another, maybe, possibility, function of the permeable percentage that's in the Ordinance, is to keep the quality of groundwater from being contaminated, by having enough area to separate your leaching and your sewer from the groundwater disposal. This particular pro j ect is going to be sewered, so we have a little bit more flexibility than you might have on a site where it's not sewered. MR. WHITE-In regard to, is this the minimum variance necessary to for a setback, we feel it is. We've positioned the building, at least, outside there, and we've just provided this for fire lane and for deliveries. There's limited deliveries to the site. The area would be used very infrequently. Is it detrimental to other properties? We believe not. Although it abuts a multifamily residential district, the closest structures to it are storage barns for vehicles. The actual structures that could potentially be impacted are back this distance from the site, and the area that is in here, in this 25 feet of green space. is fairly heavily wooded. So we have a good visual screening there. As far as effect on public services, we don't see any detrimental effect to public services. The only, I guess, small positive effect is that we're providing an area for complete fire access around the building. Any questions on that one? MR. THOMAS-Why can't you take 25 feet off the back of that building to get your 50 feet? MR. WHITE-Because it would decrease the square footage of the building. MR. THOMAS-By 9500 square feet. It would leave you 106,600 square - 18 - "-' - feet of building. That's still too small? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. THOMAS-For 10,000 feet, that's, what, about eight percent of the building? MR. WHITE-It's too small, and it also wouldn't provide an area for our loading dock here. MR. TURNER-Yes. You'd lose your loading dock. MR. WHITE-The reason we had the loading dock over here is initially we had considered putting a loading dock in this area, but we didn't want to impact these residents any more than we could, so we put the loading dock area over in this area here. MR. THOMAS-It would give you better access in the back, too, if you had 25 more feet. MR. WHITE-It would. MR. TURNER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Go ahead. MR. WHITE-The last variance we're requesting is the planted divider strip. We feel we have a practical difficulty mainly because we have, to a large degree, a preexisting condition. As we pointed out, there's 620 existing parking spaces right here that have no landscaped islands, no buffers, no landscaping in the end islands, and I think what we're proposing is quite an improvement upon that. We've divided the areas up as best we could. I know the Code requirement's 150 stall, groups. We have 324 existing slots. We've got less than the 150, 83 in this quadrant here, and we have 485 in this quadrant here, with a couple of additional spaces back in this area here. We feel that going from 620 open spaces to a maximum of 485 spaces, being about a 20 percent reduction in asphalt area, helps alleviate, at least it decreases the preexisting condition to a more reasonable type layout, and this is fairly consistent with what Wal-Mart's done in the past. Normally, we wouldn't provide this area here, so that we can have free circulation across the lot, but we realize that this particular Code and Ordinance, that Queensbury likes to have their planted divider strips. So we provided it where we can on here. Now our original plan had these stalls at 61 feet on center, and how we got this strip in here is it was reduced to 60 feet. Sixty feet's the Town requirement. So we gained, we shifted each of these over a foot, so we gained an area to put the divider strip in there, without the loss of parking. MR. PHILO-I think I'd rather see that divider strip in there. Zayre's has had that crewed ever since they started up there. MR. TURNER-Yes, but the nice them from cutting across. not too many cars, and you and, I'm going to take a three or four lanes. thing with a divider strip, that stops You get up there at night and there's get in your car and you turn the key on, short cut right across, and go across MR. PHILO-It gives you some traffic control that way. You come out around that edge of the building, I've seen women almost get hit there myself, going over to that diner. MR. CARVIN-How will that effect your snow removal? MR. WHITE-Snow removal will have to be pushed in this direction here, and stored where it could be along the perimeter of the site, and when you get to a situation where you had snow like you had today, we would probably be doing what I saw a lot of people doing today, is loading it on trucks and hauling it away. - 19 - - ,e_ MR. CARVIN-Do you use salt in the parking lots, by any chance? Do you know if that's a common practice? MR. WHITE-I think it varies seasonally by region, and the lot maintenance is going to be up to the store manager, and whatever his determination is on how to best handle that. MR. TURNER-That's going to be contracted out anyway. So the guy doing it's going to be using salt, at his discretion. MR. WHITE-Wal-Mart doesn't have a policy of, we use sand or we use sal t. I think as far as be ing able, if we have a practic9l difficulty, to provide additional planting strips, because we can t shrink them any further than the 60 feet. Again, that's the Code requirement, and it's a good Code requirement, because I think anything less than that is going to create a parking lot that's too tight, creating unsafe conditions. It's difficult for cars to maneuver in and out of parking stalls, and I think that's not a situation that we should be in. MR. TURNER-So, what you're saying is, then, you're going with the parking at nine by twenty, one hundred and eighty square feet, or the nine and a half by eighteen? MR. WHITE-No. The stalls are nine and a half feet wide, but the dimensions from center of the stall to center of the stall is 60 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes, but you've got to have 20 between the two stalls. You've got 60 to 60 center, right? MR. WHITE-Right. MR. TURNER-You've got 20, 20, and 20. MR. WHITE-We're proposing 18, 18, 20, and 4 feet. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know you are, but the Code says you've got to have 180 square feet. So, you need relief from that. MR. WHITE-Well, we talked with the Planning Department about that, when we came in with the application. and really I guess it depends on how you define a stall. Do you define a stall by how far the stripes are actually painted, or do you define a stall by what you actually what the actual available space is for parking, and just because we're only striping the stall 18 feet deep, which encourages people to park further into the stall, and leave the drive lane open, doesn't mean that there's not the 20 foot available there. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know. It's a technical point, but the technical point, the Ordinance doesn't address the technical point. It says 180 square feet, and it's been amended. MR. 0' CONNOR-Does the Ordinance, Mr. Turner. say it has to be marked? MR. TURNER-It doesn't say anything about marked. square feet. It says, 180 MR. PHILO-Well, it's already there. MR. 0' CONNOR-That's the only 18 dimensions on there. They're showing striping of 18 feet. They are showing a 60 foot area, toe to toe, and Bill calls it 18 foot stall, 24 foot drive lane, 18 foot stall. In practicality, it's still 20, 20, and 20. It's a matter of the length of the markings, which I don't think are, and I know you're talking about a technicality, but I don't think the markings in there say that the markings have to be 20 feet long. It says that you have to have stalls available nine by twenty, and - 20 - - maybe I'm wrong. MR. TURNER-Nine by twenty. That's what it says. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. So I think we are in compliance there. MR. MARTIN-When I looked at this, I was mainly concerned about the 60 feet. He's got 60 feet, 1 ike he says, toe to toe, and an advantage here over what is required is the nine and a half foot width. I mean, at least we're getting half a foot more out there, because I think, around some of the newer parking lots in the Town, like the Quaker Plaza, you come to see that the nine by twenty is a little tight. So, the width is a real benefit, and the strip on the ground, in terms of the length, you know. if a car pulls all the way into the stall, if it's in there it's in there. I mean, the width, I think is a real advantage. in this case, as a practical matter. MR. WHITE-And I think Wal-Mart would prefer to have a 10 foot wide parking space, but they realize that because we're tight on the parking requirement, here, that going to a nine and a half foot stall provides adequate parking. and maximizes the area of green space. It's something they're willing to do. They're not willing to go down to a nine foot stall, because they've had too many customer complaints about people banging doors, and they just don't want that. That's not the way they run their business. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it, but all I'm saying, that's a technicality, that's all. MR. WHITE-Okay. MR. PHILO-How many cars would go over 18 foot, Ted? If it's just a strip and it's pulling them up tighter to the. MR. TURNER-That doesn't mean anything. You could put 100 strips out there, and they'll park where they want to park, when it's empty. MR. PHILO-Well, he's got the 60 feet, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TURNER-Yes. He's got what's required, and that's all he would need. MR. O'CONNOR-When you talk of compromise, that's something we've been able to achieve within the last week or so. They wanted 61 feet in there and we got the 61 foot. That's how we created the divider, by gathering the one foot extra on four different lanes. two that were going to be in the Ames parcel and two that were going to be in the Ames parcel. to come up with that configuration. MR. CARVIN-It's kind of a leading question, but how many employee cars do you think it will occupy, how many spaces? MR. WHITE-A typical Wal-Mart store of this size will employ 200 to 250 people. That's not to say that they're all there at the same time. Obviously, the hours are nine to nine, they employ one of two shifts during the day. There could be as many as 80 Associates in the store at one time, if that all drove separately, that's 80 spaces. MR. CARVIN-And you'd also have to figure the Ames, right? MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WHITE-I believe that the Ames employees would be parked on the side here, but I'm not sure that that's a requirement. - 21 - MR. PHILO-Back there where that loading dock is, is that all driveway? MR. WHITE-Yes. This is all heavy duty asphalt pavement. MR. PHILO-How wide is that? MR. WHITE-Thirty feet. MR. PHILO-From the building, thirty feet? MR. WHITE-Yes. No ¡'m sorry. It's 30 feet from hexe to here. It's wider back in th1S area, because we have the dOCK tor the Ames store back in this area. We're sort of hesitant to mix the truck traffic with the vehicle traffic. I know there's some fire, some doors that come out the back side of Ames there, and I know Wal- Mart doesn't like to do that, because generally those areas aren't well lit, and there's a safety concern with their employees. Under the, is ita detriment to other properties, we believe not. We think we've even improved a little bit the traffic circulation for the Queen Diner with thi s proposed plan. You can see on the existing one, this is just a wide open area here, and the lot, vehicle traffic in this area, and what we've tried to do with the new plans, channelize and direct traffic back into the site and into the Queen Diner area. So we think we've improved the site circulation by the use of planted divider strips in these areas here, and I believe that the addition of the planted divider strips is also better than what we have in the existing condition. So I think it's not only not a detriment, but it's a positive thing. We can improve upon the existing condition. As far as the effect on public services, we see no effect on public services. Any questions? We're open for questions, discussion? MR. TURNER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. O'CONNOR-One other point, if I might. We may mislead you when we say that we're looking for a variance from the 50 foot rear setback line. That is a 25 foot setback line in that zone, but because it's a commercial zone, the zoning is residential use, it's a buffer, and in part, if you take a look at what's on the other side of that buffer, I might even question the necessity for the buffer, except that it is zoned residential. There aren't apartments that are right along that back line. There are garages. then they have their own drive area, a parking area, and then the apartment building. So we're impacting very little on the buffer zone as a buffer zone would normally be used for single family residential use that adjoins a commercial use. It's not a setback. It is a buffer area that we're encroaching upon with that drive area that goes around the back of building, and the two parking stalls in the southwest corner. MR. TURNER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny, resident of the Town of Queensbury. At this point I'd like to make a statement in regard to the Queensbury Businessman's Association. I'm a member. We've drafted a statement. The Board of Directors of the Queensbury Businessman's Association discussed the Wal-Mart for the Town of Queensbury and would like to make our opinions known. First, I would like to state that the Board would favor the project. We believe it will enhance and improve one of the oldest shopping plazas in Queensbury. Without the Wal-Mart project, this existing plaza would be a rundown eyesore. Second, when we, we typically don't take positions on the zoning variances, or site plans, specific issues. I think that's up to the Board to review at their own merits. We don't review that, but the Board discussed, the zoning - 22 - variance request by Wal-Mart raised an issue that we believe needs to be addressed. This requires the minimum permeable area for commercial zones in the Town. The present zone requirement of 30 percent of lot be permeable for the RC-15, PC-lA, HC-1A, CR-15, and NC-1A zones. This is the same requirement as many residential zones, such as the UR-10, MR-5, SR-20, SR-15, and SR-10. We strongly believe the 30 percent permeability requirements in some commercial zones should be reduced to 20 percent in accordance with the recently approved enclosed shopping zone. This is more in character with the existing commercial development within the Town, and permits more reasonable use of the existing commercial land. The 20 percent requirement will still preserve adequate green space for good aesthetic development of commercial lots. However, we suggest that the zoning definitions of permeable areas and requirements for the zoning variance be reworded so that the green space is reasonably distributed throughout the development and is not simply an undeveloped corner. which does not add to the aesthetic quality of the development. I don't know if that should be brought up before this Board tonight. It's something that the Queensbury Businessman's Association has looked into in the Town and talked to the Zoning Administrator about the possibility of addressing some of the existing commercial property that cannot meet 30 percent permeability and create undue hardship in the Town. In respect to this pro j ect, now I'll speak for mysel f. as a business person in the Town, I think they've addressed most of the concerns. I, personally, as a business owner along the road, I own the Days Inn in the Adirondack Factory Outlet, by the way, which is developed at 20 percent permeability, not 30 percent permeability, since 1988. The other concern, I guess, as far as the permeability area goes, and if it's possible to be addressed by the Town in the future, is one of the reasons for the permeability area, I believe, is mostly the green space, and which does define that somehow in the Town, but also is the stormwater, and on-site drainage, which most of Queensbury is on-site drainage, Highway Commercial up by us. but then going to the expense of bringing in sewer, it should have some. I guess quite a big bearing on the green space that's required, because now you're not worried about the septic system mixing in with the groundwater. You're getting it off the site, whereas myself, on my property, we had on-site drainage, but we also have sewer. So, we really try to separate the two, so that, more green space, and keep it separated so the two don't mix in. So that the possibility of less green space for this particular project may be there, but that is still, I think, an individual application, I think this Board will determine whether the variance should be granted or not. We have not taken a position on that. We have not even addressed the other variances, because we feel them very site specific, and each one has their own merits, and that's what the Zoning Board is here to decide. So, we don't feel that's in our jurisdiction, but overall we feel the project is a real good project, and we feel it would enhance that development that's there today, and that's our position. and that's also my position. Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard in favor of the application? DAN OLSON MR. OLSON-Good evening. Daniel Olson, 29 Carlton Drive. I don't know if I would speak in favor of the application. I wouldn I t speak against it. What came for to address you concerns the questions that myself and my neighbors had, that border the south border of that property, and if I could just look at the map for a second and point out some things to you. and tell you how those were resolved with the developers and needs of the development. This is my residence here, and on behalf of my other neighbors, this neighbor, this neighbor, this neighbor, and we go around in here where a couple of people, two on June Drive, which is behind here, are concerns were with this buffer zone that's already existing. We've had two meetings, workshop sessions, meetings. - 23 - wi th the developer, their attorney, and the planners for this project here in this building we had this meeting and Mr. Martin was also present. The developers assured us that, there's an existing chain link fence that goes right down through that property line on the side there. That existing chain link fence would stay there. The developer would put, attached to the side of that fence. a wooden stockade type fence. So you'd have a solid fence also. MR. PHILO-Why is that? MR. OLSON-We have a chain link fence now, Tom. MR. PHILO-I know. Why do you want a wooden fence? MR. OLSON-To stop some of the visual pollution that we get. looking through there. MR. PHILO-Why can't they just weave that chain link fence. MR. OLSON-Tom, that was brought up, but any experience with weaving of that fence, the number of years, it really deteriorates fast, and it doesn't look that great, to me. The appearance of it, over a period of time, it's fiberglass, usually it's made out of a plastic material, but we were satisfied with the stockade type fence mounted to the existing fence that's already there. It would keep blowing debris from coming through. There's a good stand of natural trees in this area right here, and now, with the 50 foot buffer, it's approximately 50 foot. In some cases it's a little bit more, it's a little bit less, but it's a good growth of high trees now, quite thick, in good places through here, which shields the existing storage from the neighborhood here. The natural growth of trees, we've been assured, will stay there. It would not be cut down and replanted. It would stay there. The area in question would be cleaned Up, that stuff and debris. In locations where it, they would plant other trees that will grow up, probably Scotch Pine or some kind of Pine that would branch out quickly. Continuing the fence around this back here with plantings also, because of the noise from the automotive section, to try to buffer that noise from the eXisting residents over here. That answered our major concerns and major questions. The lighting on this end of the building, directed down through the parking lot, so that lights wouldn't shine through here, into the neighbor's backyards in the evening. I think I've covered everything. Once we have these questions answered to us, and we're assured by the developer and their representatives that they would take care of these particular concerns that we had, we do have the buffer zone, which is required by the Ordinance now. Yes, we'd like to have another 100 feet in there, but we just can't. We just can't get that. So we feel comfortable with what they've told us, and we feel comfortable that they'll maintain what they've told us they will. Thank you for your time. MR. TURNER-Thank you. Dan. support? Anyone wish to application? Anyone else wish be heard that's to be heard in opposed to the FRED GILCHRIST MR. GILCHRIST-Yes. I'd like to speak in opposition. Fred Gilchrist. I live in Roberts Garden North. Before I speak, I was going to ask the people if they plan to use Weeks Road as an access for the public to come into their store, and also as the access for the large trucks delivering the materials to their store? MR. WHITE-Yes. I can address that. This area currently, and I think that should be shown on this plan, here, is a pretty wide open asphalt area here. What we're proposing to do is improve that, provide some green space, and channelize the entrances into here. There's an existing truck access that comes into the Ames - 24 - - store in this area there, and we've maintained that access. The development of the Wal-Mart store has it's own primary access coming from this site, and this particular access here will be developed and signalized to try to encourage people to come to the signal. MR. GILCHRIST-How do you plan on getting your trucks into the area, into that loading dock? Will they come in Weeks Road? MR. WHITE-For this particular dock. the Wal-Mart store, trucks come in this way, back in, and exit out that way. For the Ames people, we're going to, this dock currently points this way, and it's a bad situation, because the truck will dock there and it will block this access off. So we're going to reconfigure it and point it this way. So that a service vehicle for the Ames store would come up through Weeks Road and do just the opposite of what a Wal-Mart truck might do, come in this way, back in, and exit out through here. MR. GILCHRIST-Do you think that a truck, or your large trucks, can exit onto Route 9 from Weeks Road? MR. WHITE-Onto Route 9 from Weeks Road? MR. GILCHRIST-From Weeks Road, yes? MR. WHITE-Here? MR. GILCHRIST-Our road is only barely wide enough for two cars. There's no shoulder, and you think a truck could come out there? MR. WHITE-It's not the best situation, but they're doing it now. There is room to do it. Trucks have been doing it for as long as Ames has been in operation. MR. GILCHRIST-No. They've cut through the parking lot. IIi ve there. I see it. I live there, and I moved in there as my retirement home. I've only got one problem. We have a problem with traffic, getting in and out of Weeks Road. I do it every day, and it's always a problem. Sometimes it's less in the winter. Right now it's real bad with snow banks, but in the summer it's atrocious. As I spoke, it's a two lane road. It's very narrow, there between the Chinese Restaurant and the Car Wash. There's no shoulder. There's curbs on one side. So there's barely room for two cars. Route 9, as you go north, is a four lane road. It suddenly becomes a two lane road as it hits Weeks Road. Conversely, the same thing is south, it's a two lane road, then it's suddenly a four lane road. Every time you try and come in and out of that, you've got a problem with traffic, and somehow or other it's got to be eliminated. The traffic is very. very bad at the moment. You also have the people coming in to the Car Wash. At times they get in a big rush, and they back out on Weeks Road, and then they back out onto Route 9. They block the entire road. You have people coming down with their signal light on to turn right. Are they going to turn into Weeks Road? Are they going to turn into the Chinese Restaurant? Are they going to turn into the Diner, or are they going to turn into Ames? We have no idea. You see a car with the directional signal, you start to edge out, and the other guy passes to get up on the four lane road there. We've got a problem on there, too. MR. WHITE-May I respond to that one, before you go on to the next topic? MR. GILCHRIST-Sure. MR. WHITE-We had a pretty lengthy discussion about traffic and traffic generation, and how we've mitigated it. at last night's Planning Board meeting, and Shelly's probably more qualified to talk about this, but what we're going to do is add a signal at this - 25 - entrance right here. and what that's going to do is create gaps in traffic on Route 9. Part of the reason people are having trouble getting out of Weeks Road is that there's constant traffic on it. With a signal, this will stop traffic in this direction, and as the Town Engineer referred to it, it's called a platooning system. The vehicles come here, stop, and get out on Weeks Road, vehicles move on, and hopefully, with the controlled access point here, also, which aligns with the Ponderosa and provides them, being able to access the Ponderosa a little bit better. We're able to control the traffic and hopefully provide those gaps and increase the traffic exiting Weeks Road. MR. GILCHRIST-And if the traffic backs up, that blocks Weeks Road, and the platooning is gone. You can't get away from the traffic on Route 9, no matter what you do. MR. WHITE-Yes. There's a lot of traffic, and we've done a pretty extensive, Shelly has a pretty extensive traffic impact study submitted. MR. GILCHRIST-And then we have to take into consideration that it's already going to pull from 16 to 17 potential stores north of there, about 2/10th of a mile, up in the old Motel. That's been improved. That's going to add more traffic. I can't see any way that you can get around traffic, unless you go into a much, well, I don't know. That's not my business. All I know is that we have a problem getting in and getting out, and then we have quite a few hundred tenants in there. Some are old, like me. Some are young. Some have to take a chance. A lot of them cut through the Ames parking lot. They may be able to get through there, from the looks now, by cutting around and coming out, but coming through a parking lot is a disaster waiting to happen. You've got to have eyes on all sides of your head. I think that you've got to do a little better on your traffic. Thank you. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. CARVIN-Has there been any thought to putting a dual lighting system, in other words, one at Weeks Road and one at your entrance there, in other words, very similar to where the Y is? SHELLY JOHNSTON MS. JOHNSTON-Yes. There has been some thought to that, and obviously, whenever. MR. TURNER-Before you start, could you come to microphone and state your name for the record? MS. JOHNSTON-Sure. My name is Shelly Johnston. I'm a Traffic Engineer with the firm Transportation Concepts in Clifton Park, and we did a traffic impact study of the project. and estimated how much traffic was going to be generated by this project, the direction of those trips. where the traffic was gOing to go and come from, and how we were going to mitigate the potential impact that we proj ected of the traffic generated by the site, and we proposed, after some evaluation and reevaluation, to revise this existing asphalt center median on Route 9, to construct a left turn lane, and signalize these intersections. To answer your question directly, we had considered the possibility of signalizing Weeks Road and do a signal with this, either site driveway, comes in with Sweet Road to the north. I do a signalization there. To be frank, we would have a severe impact, we believe, on the flow of traffic on Route 9. Right now there's over 1,000 cars on each approach, or a total of 1,000 cars on Route 9 during the peak hour, and a delay to those 1,000 cars would be a greater impact, we feel, than signalizing this intersection, to the traffic that's on Route 9, and to help the people get out of Weeks Road and Sweet Road, and in addition those on Montray Road. - 26 - - MR. CARVIN-Yes. I know about the Montray, and I didn't think that was a real good idea on Montray. MS. JOHNSTON-That's one of the factors, why we revised the proposal for the traffic. MR. CARVIN-And I also share this gentleman's concern about Weeks Road. I mean, it is, anybody trying to get out, and looking north up Route 9, because there is a slight curve there. and he's correct. I mean, the way the traffic comes flying down through there, I mean, trying to get into that dual lane, it does pose a hazard. MR. MARTIN-Shelly, wasn't the problem not so much, because you're going to impact the flow of traffic on Route 9, whether you put it on Weeks Road, or whether you put it, just 100 feet to the south. It's the volume of traffic that warrants the need for the traffic light, and there's just not the volume at Weeks Road and Sweet Road that you have at the, the volume that will result entering and leaving the Wal-Mart site. MS. JOHNSTON-Right now there's about, there's less than 100 cars coming out of Weeks Road. We did growth rate, projected into the future. There will still be fewer than 100 cars coming out of Sweet Road and Weeks Road. The impetus that's requiring the traffic signal in this area at all is the traffic generated by Wal- Mart and Ames together. There simply won't be enough traffic coming out of Weeks Road from Sweet Road on a daily basis to warrant a traffic signal at those locations. MR. PHILO-Yes, but I'm kind of looking at the neighbors. If I was over there, and I got trapped in there for 25 minutes before I could get out, I'd be a little disgusted myself. If they could have some kind of light on that corner, just to let some out, I mean. a time light or something, when you pull up. MR. O'CONNOR-That may be a concern, and we are addressing it, but the configuration of the building really doesn't impact that in any manner, or the side line or the buffer area doesn't impact that in any manner. If you really look at it, and I think some people will probably take an advantage, some people will come through the site, and it will be better controlled now than what it was on your prior map, and probably a lot of Mr. Gilchrist's, come through the site feel like they're playing Russian Roulette when they come through the site with no dividers. We are going to have some control on Weeks Road for limited access as opposed to wide open access as it is right now, and even within the site, and if they do come through the site, they could take the advantage of a traffic light on Route 9. In fact, Staff, in one of their comments last night, said that we should include in our site plan review statistics. some increase in proposed traffic, because they presume that some of these people will use this as a means to get out easier and more safely onto Route 9 than what presently is right there. So we're probably going to improve your ability to get onto Route 9 in two manners. One, the platooning that Mr. Yarmowich and Rist-Frost talked about, the people coming north are going to run into a traffic light. So the traffic coming north on Route 9 is going to have a pause. You're going to have breaks in the line. You may have breaks in the line coming south, too, but you're going to have a better chance to get out just from Weeks Road because of those breaks that will occur simply because of the signalized light being in front of the site, and then secondly. if you want to cheat a little bit, they could probably go through the site and use the traffic signal to come out. It's like some people at the County Center. They come out at Glen Lake Road. You could sit in the County Center, you could see the people come off Glen Lake Road and go through the side parking lot, the south side of the building there, come across the front and come through the traffic light to get on to Route 9, because by the Glen Lake Road, Route 9, that's not a real good intersection, but I go back to my initial point. I don't know if - 27 - the configuration of the building has an impact on that. It is something that we're going to have to address with the DOT, and we have an application presently in the DOT. It is something we're going to have to address with the Planning Board, and we're going to have to satisfy them, and we're also going to have to satisfy ourselves that we don't create a nightmare. We don't want to have a nightmare. We don't want to have a bad traffic pattern or problem. We want to be able to have traffic flow very easily. So it is something that has been seriously considered and I think it's something that's going to be addressed. MR. GILCHRIST-If I may answer? MR. TURNER-Sure. Come forward. MR. GILCHRIST-The traffic light may help, but I think you're going to find the same thing there that you just mentioned up at the Municipal Center. The people in your stores that are going to come out that entrance and go out Weeks Road, and it's going to increase the traffic there because they're going to come out to the light. MR. O'CONNOR-No. The light is going to be part of our site. It's not going to be at Weeks Road. MR. GILCHRIST-You're going to have that further down? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. TURNER-Right by the Restaurant, Mr. Gilchrist. MR. O'CONNOR-Presently the proposal in to DOT at this time is to have the traffic light at the driveway that's in front of the Queen Diner entrance. MR. TURNER-Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd like to respond, if I could, to Mr. Olson's comments. The developer has no objection to this Board conditioning it's approval upon the elements that Mr. Olson has indicated that we've agreed to in our conferences with them. There is one minor change to that. The existing chain link site will stay. It will not be disturbed. We prefer not to attach the stockade fence to the existing chain link fence. We've looked at the existing fence. Dan, and it's five feet in he ight, and they requested an eight foot stockade fence. We don't think it would be stable to attach an eight foot high stockade fence to the five foot fence. So we will build the stockade fence eight feet high adjacent to the chain link fence. So it won't be attached to it, as we initially thought we could do, and parts of the wire fence or the chain link fence aren't in good shape. They wouldn't support a stockade fence. The stockade fence will be along the entire southerly boundary, except for the opening, next to Mr. Olson's house, or at the end of that roadway, next to Mr. Olson's house. The stockade fence will be put in place along the westerly boundary of the site, for a distance of 50 feet. So it would go around the corner, by Mrs. Rowe's property. All trees within that southerly 50 foot buffer will remain. They will not be cut. Additional trees will be planted in the areas of that 50 foot buffer where the trees are thin. They will be typical trees, fast growing trees, evergreen type trees. The lighting will be downcast lighting. It will not be lighting that will project into the neighborhood that's adjoining. Did I miss anything? MR. OLSON-That covers everything that was discussed. There was a discussion on how to attach the fence in that location. That's no problem with the stockade fence. MR. TURNER-Okay. You're done? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. - 28 - MR. TURNER-Okay. closed. No further comment? Okay. Publ ic hearing's PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED CORRESPONDENCE MRS. PALING-We have a letter here from Robert Eddy, 17 Owen Avenue, regarding Wal-Mart, "The newspapers indicate Wal-Mart is going to apply for variances on their proposed construction in Ames plaza. In my opinion, the variances mentioned should be denied. One, Wal- Mart should be denied a variance for reducing permeable open or green space below 30 percent. The Town of Colony, where land is much more valuable than in Queensbury, requires 35 percent permeable. There is no justification for less than the Ordinance provision. One A, a minimum buffer zone should be required toward the residential use on the south and west of 50 feet planted with fast growing evergreens five or six feet on center to absorb noise and filter exhaust fumes from the car park. Two, the Zoning Ordinance requires planted areas between each 100 car sections of the car park. Application for variance of this should be denied. This would provide part of the permeable requirements, keep drivers from driving their vehicles around as if they were on a lake driving a boat. and provide some shade and improve appearance of the car park. Three, there was an indication Wal-Mart is applying for a reduction of the distance between their building and Ames. My recollection is that fire rates require a minimum of 50 feet, or an exposure charge is made. To reduce the distance below the fire rating exposure charge would increase the cost of building and contents insurance for both Wal-Mart and Ames. I am not convinced that this is the best possible location for this enterprise. Suggestions have been made to use the Queensbury Plaza for this project. This would be a much better location for Wal-Mart, and make use of the empty space in that Plaza. It is more centrally located and could benefit the merchants of that area. Furthermore. traffic control devices would be to their benefit as well as their customers. Respectfully submitted, Robert L. Eddy" MR. TURNER-Is that the only one you've got? MRS. PALING-That's the only one. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any further questions of the applicant? MR. THOMAS-I've got one, Ted. On the south side. to the west of the Garden Center, there's a building that says, or something that says, "TBO". What's that? MR. WHITE-Tire. battery, and oil. MR. THOMAS-It's a garage? MR. WHITE-Well, no. It's not a garage. MR. TURNER-It's a storage area? MR. WHITE-No. tire s changed, drive out. It's an area where you drive your car in, get your get your battery changed, your oil changed, and MR. O'CONNOR-They would not do auto repairs, other than replacement of those items. MR. WHITE-They don't do engine work. They don't wash cars. Sears has a similar type thing. MRS. PALING-Is there any chemicals or anything stored on that site? MR. WHITE-Only oil, for changing of oil. - 29 - MR. TURNER-They do repair work. Sears does repair work. MR. WHITE-Okay. Wal-Mart does not. MR. TURNER-Yes. Penneys, I think. They used to. MR. O'CONNOR-We spoke to the Fire Marshal about the storage, and whatever their rules are, will be followed, and he will look at what our design is, when we get into the construction. MR. TURNER-So this is a combination of storage, then, and service facility, right? MR. WHITE-A storage. MR. TURNER-For your tires, your batteries, your oil. MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. TURNER-Because they're going to have to be petitioned off from the rest of the area. MR. WHITE-Well, those materials are sold inside the store. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but this is just like Sears. You go into Sears. You buy a battery. You go out in the garage and get it. It's stored out there. MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. TURNER-So what I'm saying is, you're going to petition off part of that, to provide storage for those items that you sell within the store, plus the service area, to change the oil, to change the tires. MR. WHITE-Yes. There's a little knob that actually comes out. MR. TURNER-Yes. Right here. It's 18.33 feet. MR. WHITE-This whole area right in here is the TBO. It.'s like a tire storage area. MR. O'CONNOR-The entrances to that will face Route 9. The wall that's to the residential side of the building will be a solid wall. That is not an entrance for vehicles. I also believe, Mr. Turner, they have doors on both sides of that. MR. TURNER-Front and back. MR. O'CONNOR-Front and back. MR. TURNER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-But this is a solid wall. this side. MR. TURNER-Yes. It's in and out, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Overhead doors on both sides. MR. WHITE-This one happens to be what's called a six bay TBO. So it has three overhead doors on the west side, three overhead doors on the east side and it actually holds two cars a piece, so you could actually hold six cars in there. They have larger TBOs and smaller ones. MR. TURNER-Anything else? MR. THOMAS-In the Garden Center, are you going to be storing all kinds of fertilizers and all that other stuff, right, like everybody else does? - 30 - MR. WHITE-Plant materials, those type of things, a small amount of lumber. a very small amount, just for, like, landscaping. MR. TURNER-Is that going to be a fenced in area with a roof over it, or is that going to be a wall side to the neighbors? MR. WHITE-A chain link fence, and part of it, actually that whole rectangular piece that sticks out there, is the entire Garden Center, the part that you see shaded in brown, that has an overhead canopy on it, to protect some of the materials that are a little bit more sensitive to the weather. MR. O'CONNOR-It is not necessarily a building that is not included in that 116. MR. TURNER-No. That's what I'm saying. I know that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Lets address the issues one at a time. The zero setback between the Wal-Mart store and the Ames store? Any discussion on that? Any problem with that? MR. PHILO-No. I was happy to see that they came up a plus for the zero, when they came up higher with the building than the existing building. You've got a firewall there, and that increases and keeps that area, mechanicals inside. MR. TURNER-Okay. Any problem with Item 2B, a variance to prevent less than the 30 percent impermeable area due to preexisting conditions? The only observation that I would have to that is if we make a motion to approve, although they say they're going to go to the Town Board and request tying in to the municipal sewers, that we condition the variance that we'll grant him relief on permeability if they tie into the municipal sewer. MR. PHILO-Very good. MR. THOMAS-Good idea. MR. TURNER-Anyone have a problem with Item C, the 50 foot rear yard setback? MR. THOMAS-I do. I don't see why they can't whack off 9500 square feet of storage to get that 50 foot buffer in there. They do back up to a residential area. Granted the closest apartment is 70 feet away, but sti II and all, I can't see why they can't take that 116,000 and knock it down to 106,000. It's still the biggest store they have. MR. TURNER-Yes. 116. They claim they've got three here, 71, 93, and MR. THOMAS-Yes. So if they take that 9500 off, that's still it's still 106. Now they've got four sizes, but like I say, that buffer zone there between the residential and commercial, that's always been a bone of contention. MR. TURNER-Yes. down the road. I know, and that may well be developed later on MR. THOMAS-That's right. There's no reason that Roberts Garden couldn't take those garages out and put more apartments in. MR. TURNER-Put another apartment in, exactly. Any thoughts over here? MR. PHILO-Well, when Danny and I both owned property there, they had a restriction we couldn't put anything so close to that line, right Dan? We had to stay 50 feet away from that line. That's in our zone. That was in our deed. You could never build anything - 31 - back there, right, Dan? wanted to. either party, they both had to give at that time, You couldn't put a garage back there even if you MR. O'CONNOR-We do comply with the 25 foot setback for the building. What we intrude upon, the buffer, is simply the driveway. and if you really want to look upon some of the impacts, presently right now you have a lot of vehicles that come in there to service an existing food market, that are refrigerated type vehicles. Our vehicles are more systematic in delivery, and basically they're deliveries that are made during the hours of operation of the store, Monday through Friday? MR. WHITE-Monday through Saturday, 9 to 9. MR. O'CONNOR-Monday through Saturday, 9 to 9. MR. TURNER-How many vehicles do you have coming in now, on an average, to service this size store, Monday through Friday, on a daily basis? MR. WHITE-Three to five. MR. TURNER-Three to five? MR. O'CONNOR-Three to five tractor trailers. MR. TURNER-What's the hours, when do they generally start delivering, eight or nine o'clock in the morning? MR. WHITE-The deliveries are close to the hours of operation of the store. It depends on where their actual distribution center is. MR. TURNER-Where is the distribution center going to be for this store? MR. WHITE-I don't know that it's been identified at this point. To be honest with you, we're not sure we have a store yet. MR. TURNER-No, but you've got one down the line. So where do you bring the product in for that store? MR. WHITE-The closest store, constructed, is Johnstown. right now, that's actually MR. TURNER-Where do you bring your product for that store from? MR. WHITE-Through Bentonville, Arkansas, which is Wal-Mart's headquarters. The product comes in from different vendors across the Country. MR. TURNER-Yes. I know. MR. PHILO-I don't care where it comes from. When are they going to unload? That's all I want to know. MR. O'CONNOR-During operating hours. MR. TURNER-During the operating hours. So that could be eight o'clock at night, nine o'clock at night. MR. 0' CONNOR-Some of our discussions with the neighbors, their concerns with the noise and whatnot, is presently they have trucks that seem to sit there during all hours of the day, unload all hours of the day. That's not something that we will be doing. That will be changing. So the impact, even though we're going to be within that buffer zone, is probably going to be. MR. TURNER-No, but I mean your peak holidays, your Christmas and so forth, those are the times you're going to have traffic in and out - 32 - of there. You're going to have more trucks in and out of there then you'd have on a normal basis. There's no doubt about it. MR. O'CONNOR-If you have a concern, and I'd kind of suggest in my client's interest, if you have a concern because we're within the buffer area, and you look at the purpose or function of the buffer area, maybe you want to require us to do some planting in there, to make up for the difference that we have a driveway running along the site. We would like not to do anything other than leave what's there now, but you're talking about an important element, and when you talk about a model 116 store. MR. TURNER-It would be my concern that you do provide some plantings in there to screen that area from those apartments, even though you're 70 feet away from the nearest apartment. MR. 0' CONNOR-Presently there's a fence along that line. There presently are two garages, multiple stall garages. That's the use of the site right now. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. WHITE-If you feel additional plantings are necessary. MR. TURNER-Well, he's got the right observation. That's not to say those garages are ever going to be there all the time. Wal-Mart hopefully stays there for a long time, and they might well change their mind and say, well, we'll build another row of apartments in there. So, here we are back to Square One. MR. 0' CONNOR-Wi th the configuration of the existing apartments, though. we went through there. There isn't an awful lot of room to expect, unless they raze the whole site. There isn't really a lot of rooms to build the apartments in the place of those garages because the structures then would be accessory structures and the principle structure, the primary structure, they'd be subject to setback requirements from the building itself, and they'd encroach greatly upon their existing parking for the existing parking for the apartments on the other side. You're saying that maybe some day Roberts Garden isn't going to be there. MR. TURNER-They might have to buffer 50 feet, too. Lets see, MR-5. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it's only the Commercial Residential. We will be amenable, if you have a concern there, if we could make up that concern by doing some planting there. MR. PHILO-Where would that be right there, Mike, would it be on the top? MR. O'CONNOR-The whole drive was set up, the whole length of the property encroaches upon this 50 foot buffer. You have 25 feet, which is your setback. and that's going to remain undisturbed, or as is. The 25 foot drive which is adjoining the building is what is into the buffer area. These two, I think we have two parking spots left. We have proposed six, and we rounded this off to make it a better planted area for those neighbors that are in this area, who lost the four parking spots. This is what we're talking about. Basically, what you have is traffic. You've got a solid wall building, maybe some fire exits. I'm not sure what you have designed. MR. WHITE-Yes. They are emergency exits. MR. O'CONNOR-Emergency exits only, this is not a pedestrian exit, or there's not going to be pedestrian traffic or anything of that nature, and if you take a look at our map, we show an existing garage, which is along here. The existing garage along there, and the blacktop paving is right there. If you come up here, you've got your set of apartments. - 33 - MR. PHILO-I don't see how you could put anymore in there. How could you put anymore in there? MR. O'CONNOR-Bill indicated the whole problem. Well, in here you could make them bigger. This depicts what is there. It's not an actual counting. There are landscaping standards for screening. We went through that a little bit. The SEQRA we went through, and I'm not trying to presume something. The SEQRA that we went through, so that you understand where I:.~ coming from, was of the whole project. It was not only of what is going to remain with the Planning Board, but it was also of the variances that you were going to consider, and we had some discussions on that. MR. PHILO-What is your idea on that? MR. THOMAS-You whack 25 feet of the back of that building, so they aren't encroaching in that buffer zone. MR. O'CONNOR-You have all kinds of problems there. You also look at the fact that we have a double loading dock, and we're trying to accommodate the loading dock. I don't know if you mentioned that. MR. WHITE-It's two bays wide, so that a truck doesn't sit there and wait for another truck to unload. So you don't have trucks sitting there idling. The idea is to have two trucks unload at one time, so they could both unload simultaneously. MR. TURNER-What does the back of this measure from here to here, because I'm not sure? What's the dimension from there to there, where that loading dock is? MR. WHITE-Well, that's probably about 50 feet, 45 feet. The scale of this drawing is one inch equals fifty feet. MR. TURNER-I know. MR. WHITE-The other thing we need to consider is, the reason why we have this dock back this far is this dock lis what's called a recess dock. It's actually four feet below the finished floor of the building. So when a truck does come in, the bed of the truck goes up a finished floor level, for unloading purposes, and what we have to do is excavate down four feet here, and we have to be far enough away from the foundation of this building here, so that when we cut this out four feet, we're not unearthing the foundation of this building. So, even to slide that five or ten feet forward, could potentially impact that footing. MR. CARVIN-All right. How about the Ames loading dock? Now you say you're going to reconfigure that. I mean, will you be able to, I assume your ultimate goal is to service three trucks at a time, or more? Well, no, they've got two, but where does Ames, did you say Ames is going to have? MR. WHITE-Ames has one right here. MR. CARVIN-Yes, but you said you were going to reconfigure that? MR. WHITE-Yes, because the way it's set up right now, a truck sort of backs in and it parks this way. and it blocks the entrance drive. What we're going to do is extend the loading dock area out this way. So that a truck can approach from this direction. MR. CARVIN-Well, that's what I'm saying. In other words, if your two trucks and Ames trucks show up at the same time, they'll all be able to unload. MR. O'CONNOR-There's enough room. MR. WHITE-Yes. - 34 - MR. 0' CONNOR-The length of the building is sufficient that you could have tractor trailers. MR. CARVIN-Without tripping over each other. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. WHITE-So it is sort of almost one directional traffic in through here. Most of the centers we do for Wal-Mart have a much larger area in back here. We have trucks going in one way and coming back out the other, but we don't have enough area in here to create a turnaround for trucks. HR. PHILO-That's almost 200 feet on that back side, isn't it? HR. O'CONNOR-The back of the Ames building? MR. PHILO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-One inch equals fifty feet. MR. TURNER-Three hundred and fifty feet. MR. WHITE-It's all of 200 feet. MR. TURNER-Three hundred and fifty feet, I think I scaled it at, the whole building. HR. WHITE-The other thing I didn't mention, too. is that we have a preexisting condition, where. I don't know if you've been out here to take a look at this site. this goes out here even a little bit further right now and it cuts back in. I mean. that's from trucks being parked in here trying to make this turn radius. They're almost out to the property line, actually. So, really in this area we're improving it a little bit. MR. TURNER-So you're going to provide them with one dock, one other loading dock? MR. WHITE-Yes. They only need one. MR. TURNER-They only need one? MR. WHITE-Yes. They're dock is actually serviced by larger semi tractor trailers, and it's serviced by smaller panel trucks for the smaller merchandise, and they can actually park in here, if they're small enough, so that they can park that way. A larger truck could park this way. MR. KARPELES-Yes. I agree. I think that all these problems are brought on by the fact that this is too much store for the size of the lot that you've got. If you're going to put it all on one store, and I would think something's got to give somewhere. I can't see where any of these things are the minimum variances necessary. MR. WHITE-I guess the only thing I can say is, try to be as flexible, and I think up to this point we have been as flexible as we can be with the County, and working with Town Planning Staff and the Planning Boards on trying to make this site work, and with this prototype store, we just can't be flexible on this store prototype and the store size. So, it's something that, the way Wal-Mart operates is it's a very cookie cutter type operation. They have standards and prototypes, and that's what's made them very efficient and the nation's Number One retailer. They do things one way, and if it doesn't work in an community, then they find another si te where it does work, but they really want to be in this community, and they real feel that the community and the demographics justify a store of this size. - 35 - -" MR. KARPELES-Well, the way that's coming through to me is, you're not going to compromise. but we should compromise on the Zoning Ordinance. MR. WHITE-No. I can't compromise on the bUilding size, but I can compromise on a lot of other things, like providing a planted strip here, removing the parking from this area, providing the screen for the residents here, providing additional plantings along here. We've come up with a couple of other things, we're providing a traffic signal to mitigate traffic. So we're trying to with the many different agencies that are involved in this process, and provide what we can, and cooperate and work with the, there's just a couple of things that we just cannot be flexible on, and if you have a suggestion on another way that we can mitigate a 116,000 square foot store. I'm open to suggestions, because we are flexible on making this site work around this building, but we can't change the building. MR. KARPELES-Well, I've given you a way. another story. I said you could go up MR. PHILO-That's cost prohibitive. MR. KARPELES-Well, I don't know that. I don't know that it's cost prohibitive. MR. WHITE-No. It's really not the money, to be honest with you. MR. KARPELES-I didn't think it was. MR. WHITE-It's, that's the way they do things. builds stores. Like McDonalds MR. KARPELES-Well, you're not willing to compromise the size, and you're not willing to go to two stories, and they seem to be the objections that at least some of us have, that it's seem to be too much for this size lot. MR. WHITE-Well. if we went to a different size, you're still not going to change, we could even go down to a 71 proto, and not meet the 30 percent requirement for this site. It just couldn't be done. We're that far away from it. I mean, yes, we're going to get above 15, but we're not, you couldn't put Wal-Mart's smallest store on this site, and meet the. MR. KARPELES-Well, you picked the site. right? MR. WHITE-Well, I didn't, personally, Wal-Mart did. MR. KARPELES-Wal-Mart did. MR. THOMAS-I don't believe we're talking about permeability here. I think we're talking about that 50 foot buffer zone in the back. MR. PHILO-Well, we didn't have any 50 foot of brush back there when they put Zayres in there. MR. THOMAS-Well, they've got 50 foot now. MR. PHILO-And I lived right there on the corner of Greenway, and we were right on the fence, right, Danny? In fact, these guys have put more wood in there, 25 foot, they had wood right to my fence. I can see a lot of advantages, here, of what they're doing, a lot different than when Zayres was in there when I was in there. Just a sewer, cleaning up that surface water going down to Hovey's Pond. I think they went out of their way to bend from what they wanted to start with, and I'd like to see this Town treat the business people right. There's so many hardships, the people can't build, and they're driving business out of this Town, just by some of the technicalities. - 36 - MR. THOMAS-Well, then they ought to get the Zoning laws changed. MR. TURNER-That's what zoning's all about, Tom. MR. PHILO-This is true. MR. O'CONNOR-If you get into an area variance, generally you speak about the function of the dimension that's there, and the dimension of the 50 foot buffer, is for privacy, or something of that nature. You have a commercial use that adjoins a residential use. I think we can accommodate that particular aspect of it probably the easiest of anything that you have there. Maybe you're going to tell us that we're going to have to do additional plantings, do a screening that is approved during site plan review, which will be an effective screening for that, which would give you the same effect as if you were 50 feet back. What's the function of this 50 feet? It's to make less noise travel across the boundary or whatever. We can accomplish that. Maybe you want to tell us that we've got to continue that eight foot stockade fence that whole width of that whole business. I think you get into the area variance part of our Ordinance, and you talk about a balancing of what is the impact of avoiding that. What is the justification for the dimensional requirements that you have, as opposed to the use variance. Then you're talking about something completely different. We came to the site. We chose the site, and there are certain dimensional requirements that we can't meet, and we're willing to try and mitigate any impact that we, in effect, have, or any function that would have an effect or impact on that. but we don't have the flexibility to go to a two story store, or change the size of the store. We just don't, and we're being very up front with you. We're being very up front with the Planning Board of the County, the Planning Board of the Town, the Sewer Department, the Beautification Department, with everybody. We are trying to be reasonable. We will do whatever we can to mitigate any impact that you think is negative. MR. THOMAS-It's my opinion that it should be that 50 foot buffer, but I'm only one of seven. MR. TURNER-Chris. do you think it's substantial, the relief on the back side? MR. THOMAS-Fifty percent? MR. TURNER-Fifty percent. That's pretty substantial. MR. THOMAS-That's pretty substantial. Yes. MR. WHITE-What we can offer is we'd be willing to meet with the Fire Marshal and if he's willing to reduce the width of that fire lane back there from 30 feet down to possibly 25, and maybe that other five feet be a different material that's pervious, like a stone, or gravel. We're willing to do what the Fire Marshal says. That's really what's driving, that we have to have a 30 foot wide asphal t area back there. If he says, 20 in asphalt and 10 in gravel, that's fine. That gives us 10 more feet. Our initial meeting with him was more like, we presented this plan. and he said, yes, fine. We didn't go in and negotiate with him how wide it had to be. If that's your direction, and you would like to make it a condition of your resolution, that we meet with the Fire Marshal and minimize that as much as possible, we're certainly willing to do that. MR. TURNER-What's your thoughts? MR. PHILO-We did it with Sutton's. MR. THOMAS-I was just reading the Buffer Zone, in the Ordinance, the definition of it, and it says, in that buffer zone, no parking or storage of vehicles of any kind or objects associated with the - 37 - - use of the property is permitted. So you're actually impacting that buffer zone with your building. MR. O'CONNOR-No. The building is outside of the 50 feet. There's 55 feet between the back of our building and the property line, and what we're showing is two parking spots within it, which is a violation of the definition of the buffer zone and the drive area. MR. TURNER-Fred, you're sitting there thinking. Have you got any thoughts? MR. CARVIN-Yes. I've got a lot of thoughts. MR. TURNER-Okay. Spell them out. MR. CARVIN-Well. I have more of a problem with the permeability, I suppose, if we're going to make an issue of the setback. We're basically granting. what, a 50 percent relief from the 30 percent permeability? We're coming down to a 15, 16 percent? MR. WHITE-Fifteen for the entire site. MR. CARVIN-For the entire site. MR. WHITE-The Wal-Mart parcel is higher. The Ames parcel is lower. MR. CARVIN-Yes, well, we're still taking it in total, right? So. I mean, even if we split off. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have to look at them separately. MR. MARTIN-I think the relief has to be granted separately, because the end result would be two separate lots. MR. TURNER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-But if you want to make a comparison that's a fair comparison, you might take a look at what Plaza Commercial allows, which is this use, which is 20 percent , although this is not a Plaza Commercial. If you compare what we're doing as to what's been allowed. MR. CARVIN-I think we've granted variances of a similar nature. We've had more traffic. I'm thinking of Aronson's. I mean, he's got trucks going in there, and that's right in the heart of a residential area. I don't think Robert Gardens is going out of business, nor do I think it's something of the immediate future that they're going to be bUilding another apartment complex. So, I think that they've addressed the issue that they're willing to put, I mean, if they're willing to put extra buffer out there, I think that that would address the problem. He's opened up a Pandora's Box, if he's willing to talk to with the Fire Marshal and see if we can get another five foot strip of permeability. I certainly would be in favor of that. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I would offer about his interpretation of gravel is the Town has typically looked at even gravel as impervious. It's not permeable area. MR. CARVIN-And in lieu of that, I think that it is max, I mean, they're putting an air craft carrier in a bath tub. There's no doubt about that, but what's the alternative? Are we going to say that, fine, continue your request and look for another site. MR. TURNER-You said you have a problem with permeability? MR. CARVIN-I think they've addressed it. MR. TURNER-I don't have a problem with it in this respect. They're going to provide storm sewer. They're going to contain the - 38 - contaminants within the tank. the. The water's going to runoff into MR. PHILO-It's going to be twice as good as what it is now. MR. CARVIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. TURNER-Yes. That's going to be taken care of. MR. PHILO-Plus they're going to have sewage in there. They won't have to. MR. TURNER-And if we condition the variance to the fact that they have to tie into the public sewer. That satisfies my concern about permeability. MR. CARVIN-As I was said. I'd certainly like to see more, but I don't see where we're going to come up with it. MR. TURNER-Right, but the subsurface soil is very ideal. MR. CARVIN-Yes, and now the zero side line setback, I'm not real crazy. but you say we've done that before. MR. TURNER-We've done that before. MR. CARVIN-As long as we're not creating a monster here that's going to come back and bit us in the but. I guess, as I said, I think the plan is outlined, and they certainly have shown a willingness, and I'm assuming that all you other folks are from the neighborhood there. So if there was a major concern, they'd be here. MR. TURNER-Chris. would you be concerned, if they agreed to put a fence up along there, and buffer it with some more plantings? Would that satisfy your concerns? MR. THOMAS-Yes. I think it would. MR. PHILO-Put that eight foot fence right down that side where the garages are. MR. WHITE-There is a five foot high fence. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but I really think if you're going to do one side. you should do the other. Even though the garages are there, the residences are still just 70 feet away. MR. CARVIN-Well, the other thing I think we ought to look at, too, is that this building is going to be how many feet higher than the Ames? MR. TURNER-About five feet. MR. CARVIN-Is it only five feet? I thought it was more than that. MR. TURNER-No. That's what he said, five feet. MR. CARVIN-Okay. Then that shouldn't really have any impact. I thought it was going to be ten, fifteen feet higher. That would be something else. MR. TURNER-I think he said 29 feet. MRS. PALING-I've been up there looking at it, and it is very close. and I thought they should have more screening on that back. MR. TURNER-That's fine with me. MR. PHILO-Just put it in the motion. - 39 - MR. TURNER-We will. motion's in order. Okay. If we're all done discussing it, a MR. THOMAS-Is this going to be four separate motions, or one to cover them all? MR. TURNER-We can itemize them as we go. MR. MARTIN-I just want to remind you, on the permeability, make sure you separate it out by the lot. MR. TURNER-Yes. read that. Right. Maybe. before we go to the motion, just MRS. PALING-Okay. MR. TURNER-We're going to hold off on the motion. She's going to read one letter into the record. MRS. PALING-Okay. This is from Rist-Frost Associates, to the Town of Queensbury, Attention: Mr. Jim Martin, Re: Area Variance No. 11-1993, National Realty and Development Corporation, "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed the project with respect to the applicant's request for a variance from the 30 percent minimum permeable area requirement in HC-1A zones. Based upon the proposed two lot subdivision for the 17.74 acre parcel, Reference: Subdivision 3-1993, the fOllowing table presents our estimates of permeable areas based upon existing and proposed site data furnished by the applicant." I'll read this chart as best I can, here. We're talking, now, about existing conditions overall. "38 Percent Ames Store 6.456 acres 9 percent Wal-Mart store 11.287 acres 54 percent Proposed conditions overall 12.5 percent Ames Store 8.5 percent Wal-Mart store 15 percent Permeable areas included in the above estimates are grass. bare earth, wooded or landscaped areas, permeable areas can be utilized for buffers, aesthetic development of the site, storage of plowed snow, on-site sewage disposal, stormwater management. or vacant. Site buffering and stormwater retarding effect of permeable areas diminishes drastically from wooded areas to bare earth. Grass and landscaped areas are of intermediate value. depending upon how they are distributed on the site. Remaining permeable areas will be of low to moderate value, since little wooded area will remain on the site. Because public sewers are proposed for the project, available area for on-site sewage disposal is not a factor. This assumes that public sewer service for all existing and proposed developments can be successfully arranged. The explanatory notes attached to the variance application state that stormwater from the entire site will be infiltrated. However the drainage report submitted only demonstrates that the increase in stormwater will be infiltrated. This should be resolved. Stormwater generated from the majority of proposed impermeable surface will be parking lot runoff. Parking lot runoff is normally associated with petroleum based pollutants and solid debris. The larger the parking area, the more elaborate the stormwater runoff quality and quantity controls need to be. From an engineering standpoint, adequate stormwater management can generally be practiced, given suitable soil conditions and an appropriate drainage system. The site would appear capable of supporting an adequate stormwater management system. Snow clearing from the parking lots will generate large amounts of snow. Storage of snow on-site may not be possible given the high ratio of proposed parking lot area to proposed grassy areas. Should the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the applicant's proposed variances, it is suggested that the Town stipulate that stormwater management practices prevent any off-site pollutant transport, and at a minimum require infiltration of all increases in runoff. Very truly yours. Rist-Frost Associates, Tom Yarmowich, Managing Project Engineer" MR. O'CONNOR-And we have no problems with you incorporating that suggestion by reference. Mr. Chairman. can I make a comment, - 40 - maybe, and maybe Arlyne may disagree with me, but those Notes may not be necessarily germane, because they unfortunately reflect what was in the prior map. So your percentages are going to be all off a little bit. We did improve the presentation. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Yes. I made a note to the Chairman regarding that, any relief that they give would be on the current percentages. MR. TURNER-Maybe I didn't even read that. MRS. RUTHSCHILD-The permeability is the only difference. MR. TURNER-I think the first paragraph entertains basically what the applicant's after, 30 percent. MR. O'CONNOR-I would acknowledge, on behalf of the developer, I have seen it and I realize that it's part of the record of this application. MR. TURNER-I think the first paragraph pretty much entertains what you're after, does it not? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it does. Yes. MR. TURNER-Okay. I'll make a motion. MQTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-1993 NATIONAL REALTY AND ºEVELOPMENT CORPORATIQN, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: I would grant the applicant relief from the 0 side yard setback of 20 feet, which would become two separate walls between the Wal-Mart store and the Ames store. Although the applicant could down-size the project, according to market studies, this is the structure that suits the needs of the applicant. It might be self-created in a sense, but I don't think that's the case. The practical difficulty in this respect is due to the size of the two buildings that are on the lot, that creates the condition for the relief that's requested. Two, I would grant relief from the 30 percent permeability as follows: Ames would be granted relief of 21.5 percent, and Wal-Mart 15 percent of relief. The relief granted is based on the fact that the applicant has proposed a stormwater collection system for the total site. The applicant has proposed tying in to the municipal sewer system, which will be a condition of the variance, that the applicant must tie in to the municipal sewer system. Otherwise, the relief will be forfeited. Three, the rear yard setback, I would grant the applicant 25 feet of relief from the required 50 foot buffer. The practical difficulty here is the alignment of the building which indicates two loading docks in the rear for the Wal-Mart Store, which face the north, and the proposed realignment of the loading dock on the Ames Store which would face the south. I would also make a requirement of the applicant that the area in that buffer be fenced with an eight foot stockade fence from the south to the north, the total length of the property in the rear, that it will only go to the end of the Ames building and then will be reduced to the height required by the Ordinance, and that further plantings be required of the applicant to further buffer that area. Four, I would grant relief from the planted divider strips which the Ordinance requires for every 150 cars. The applicant has proposed a divider strip on the north boundary between the Wal-Mart Store and the Ames Store, a planted di vider. The landscaping as proposed minimizes the applicant's parking requirements. If the dividers are inserted in his parking plan, it reduces his ability to meet the required parking requirements as per the Ordinance, 606 parking spaces for Wal-Mart, and 350 for Ames. The practical difficulty here is that the applicant has mitigated to a great concern with the buffered areas and the landscaping as proposed, which prevents him from providing the dividers, and would require him to seek a relief from the parking requirements that are proposed by the Ordinance. - 41 - ---- Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Carvin. Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Philo, Mr. Turner NOES: Mr. Karpeles ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. TURNER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-There's one last item, Ted. MR. TURNER-The Dittus Resolution from February the 17th, 1993, five lines down from the words after "75 feet" - revision should read: "and that we also grant 24 feet of relief from the south side yard setback and total required side yard setback of 50 feet, as per Section 179-16C." MRS. RUTHSCHILD-Ted. I think you need to say it replaces something. Otherwise it would just add it to it. MR. TURNER-Yes. Replaces. Just replace it with that correction. MR. MARTIN-I think if you make a resolution, as corrected in the memo from Arlyne, of today's date. That'll be sufficient. MR. TURNER-Okay. MOTION TO MAKE THE CORRECTION IN THE RESOLUTION OF AREA VARI~NCE NO. 129-~992 THOMAS DITTUS FROM FEBRUARY 17TH. 1993, Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Philo: Five lines down after words "75 feet" - revision. to replace. should read: "and that we also grant 24 feet of relief from south side yard setback and total required side yard setback of 50 feet, as per Section 179-16C." Duly adopted this 24th day of February, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Philo, Mr. Carvin, Mr. Karpeles, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Eggleston On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Theodore Turner, Chairman - 42 -