Loading...
1987-07-21 J13 QUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD -',,- Regular Meeting Held: Tuesday, July 21, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Thomas Martin, Secretary Susan Levandowski Joseph S. Dybas Victor Macri Frank DeSantis R. Case Prime, Counsel Susan E. Davidsen, Planning and Zoning Department Absent: Hilda Mann The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Roberts The May 19, 1987 minutes were approved as written by consensus. The June 16, 1987 minutes were corrected as follows: page 4, Subdivision No. 9-87, 3rd paragraph, should be Mrs. Levandowski, not Mrs. Goetz. Also, page 4, 1st sentence, should be Charles Scudder not Richard Morse. The minutes were approved as corrected by consensus. OLD BUSINESS SUBDMSION NO. 16-86, Preliminary Approval Baybridge, Phase III Mr. Roberts stated that this is for 44 lots at Walker Lane, 1,000 feet west of Bay Road (southerly side) in an Urban Residential 5 zone. Mr. Roberts asked if there was anyone present to represent the project. No one was present. The Board decided to go onto the next order of business and wait for a representative to show up. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87, Preliminary and Final Approval Donald Kruger Mr. Roberts stated that this was for 10 single family lots south of Bonner Drive in a Suburban Residential 20 zone. Jeff Anthony, Landscape Architect, stated that construction drawings were submitted to an engineer for review who found them to be acceptable. Mr. Roberts asked if they had approached the Board of Health. Mr. Anthony said 1 ]4-Lf ".0, they didn't realize that was needed. He said they will follow through on what is required __JY the Board of Health. Mr. Martin read the report from Charles Scudder, Consulting Engineer, dated July 17, 1987. It stated that Mr. Scudder had reviewed the revised plans for the Kruger Subdivision off Bonner Drive, Queensbury. The report stated that the project is now in compliance with Town standards and that layout is greatly improved over the original plan. The report stated that if there is no objection from either the Queensbury Highway Superintendent or the Water Superintendent, approval is recommended upon the receipt of these agency approvals. Mr. Roberts stated that he had not heard from the Town Water Department or State Highway Superintendent as of this meeting date. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Mrs. Levandowski MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 4-87, Donald Kruger as previous concerns of the Board have been met. State Health Department, Town Water Superintendent, and Town Highway Superintendent Approval is needed for final approval. Second by Mr. Dybas. Passed Unanimously. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-86, Preliminary Approval Baybridge, Phase III Charles Scudder represented Valente Builders, Inc., Daniel J. Valente, President. Mr. Scudder passed out copies of the consulting engineer's report from Nick Sciartelli, Morse Engineering to Board Members. The report was dated July 20, 1987. It stated that Morse Engineering had reviewed the submitted plans for Baybridge, Phase I and found no exceptions; therefore recommending the project for final approval. Mr. Roberts stated that there was a mistake in the report. It should be for preliminary approval not final approval. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Mr. Scudder stated that this project was for 44 units, bringing the total up to 100 units. He said they have a master plan which comprises of some 245-250 units if built out to its planned extent. The Town Board had reviewed SEQR. Mr. Scudder said that in their offering plan, after a total of 80 units is built, a swimming pool and tennis courts would be built. They would be constructed in conjunction with Phase III. Mr. Scudder said there would be public water. Waste would be pumped onto high ground into the leach fields. He added that steps have been taken for erosion and storm 'Water drainage. 2 l~j Mr. Scudder stated they have a permit for stream crossing. There is a wetland vincursion on the boundary. Approximately 300 sq. ft. of the building area impinges on the wetlands. A permit had been obtained from DEC for this reason. Mr. Scudder stated that the permit was given to them in April 1987. Mr. Prime asked if there were copies in the file. Mr. Scudder stated he had not given a copy to the file but will. Mr. Valenti stated the file can have the original copy. Mr. Scudder stated he has a permit for stormwater and SPEDES permit. Mr. Roberts expressed negative feelings about impinging upon the wetlands. Mr. Scudder said it's a judgment call from where the boundary really is. He said he is not going into the wetlands to fill; ground water is marginal. Mr. Roberts stated that since Queensbury doesn't have their own wetlands ordinance, the Board has to rely on the state. Mr. Roberts asked when they might be ready for final approval. Mr. Scudder stated by the next Planning Board meeting (August 1987). Mr. DeSantis asked if there are 56 units approved as of this date tonight. He stated that what is needed is 60% of construction completed in the previous phase for final approval. Mr. Valente said 60% is completed. Mr. DeSantis stated that this is required since Baybridge Subdivision is being "grandfathered in" since the new law. John Caffrey, Queensbury Association, asked if future phases are planned to be built in the wetlands. Mr. Scudder said no, but with the possible exception that there would be on the east side of the brook because of a 100 ft. buffer; between the brook and Bay Road. He said that the Phase III map does not show this but the master plan does. Mr. Caffrey stated that the Queensbury Association is opposed to any approval of the subdivision in the wetlands even if it is for the buffer zone. He said they could rearrange the project site plan to eliminate adverse impact on wildlife. Mr. Caffrey expressed his feeling that just because ENCON has submitted a permit for approval doesn't mean the Planning Board has to approve it. Mr. Scudder responded to Mr. Caffrey's comments. He said no impact on the wetlands has been demonstrated. There will not be any impact on the flora and fauna. Mr. Scudder said that it would be a hardship to move the buildings. He reiterated that it's very minimal impingement on the wetlands; it's really a judgment call. Mr. DeSantis asked if there were any conditions stated in the ENCON permit. If there are, the public has right to know these conditions. Board members agreed that they needed to see the permit before a decision could be made. Mr. Scudder said he would get the permits and submit them for the file. Mr. Scudder said he had submitted maps to the State showing the areas disturbed. Mr. Valenti stated that they had addressed the wetlands issue with DEC. There was a discrepancy on where the wetland line is. The problem is that when you walk it, it is not really a wetland. The land is grown out with grass. Mr. Valenti said the 3,000 square feet of fill is being used for grading purposes. Fourteen acres of the wetlands are not being touched; they will be set aside. Mr. Valenti said there are deer on the land; we're not out to destroy the wetlands. Mr. Valenti stated that after 2 years of work, it's J1.ot easy to change the layout of the project. 3 J40 . Mr. Roberts stated that the Public Hearing will be left opened until the Board looks ·~at the permits. Mr. Scudder stated they will get the permits for tonights meeting. Mr. Roberts said the Board will move on to the next order of business and will go back to review the project when the permits have been submitted into the file. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87, Preliminary Approval 1 -021 -87 Cedar Court Mr. Roberts stated that this application is for 4 duplex lots and 56 townhouse units on the west side of Bay Road, 1,000 feet north of Blind Rock Road in Suburban Residential 30 and Urban Residential 5 zone. Mike O'Connor, attorney, represented the Cedar Court project. He stated that this was for 38 units in Phase I not 56. He said they had received a letter from the Warren County Department of Public Works dated July 14, 1987. The letter stated that they have no objections for clearing vegetation between the east line of Cedar Court and the west boundary of the pavement on Bay Road. Mr. Prime asked whether this was within the Homeowners Association Agreement or within the Highway boundaries. Mr. Prime questioned the fact of whether the Homeowner's Association document was viable and legal. Mr. O'Connor stated that the Homeowner's Association takes on what the individual homeowner does. Mr. Prime questioned on how he could enforce what the Homeowners Association will do. Mr. Roberts asked where the brush is going to be cut. Mr. Macri stated that what needed to be cleared is what is at the entrance. Raymond Buckley, applicant, said there is no change in the concept. The basic design of the project was shown at the last meeting. Mr. Roberts stated that a letter from the consulting engineer, Charles Scudder, dated July 17, 1987 did not recommend preliminary approval of the plans for Phase I of Cedar Court. It stated that there were a considerable number of essential planning features that had not as yet been addressed. They are as follows: complete soils data, basis of design of the wastewater system, storm water and sanitary sewer profiles, primary elevations (D.I. Frames, sewage system components, building finished floor elevations), grading and storm water management plan, road engineering details. The letter also stated that the office of Mr. Lamy, NYSDEC, who must approve plans for the SPDES Permit, a required document, has received no submittal on this project to date. The procedure is one requiring a minimum of 100 days or so. Mr. Scudder said that he had talked to Leon Steves and Mr. O'Connor since Friday July 17th. He said the plans are now more complete than what he had reviewed previously. He said he would now recommend preliminary approval be granted but stated there should be a rigorous review before final approval is granted. Mr. Scudder stated his concerns regarding proliferation of tile fields. This is a concern that Mr. Buckley has to review himself. '-- 4 J 47 Mr. Scudder stated that he was bothered by the absence of detail; grading plan, -sewer profile, stormwater management. Mr. Martin stated his concern that if the Board grants preliminary approval then the project must be okay and they can proceed on. Mr. Martin stated he is not happy with this; there are so many concerns that need to be addressed. Public Hearing Continued: no comment Mr. Buckley said that Friday, July 17th was the first time he knew that the project was lacking information. Thomas Martin read the letter from Charles Scudder, consulting engineer. There was concern among Board members that they had not seen the changes. Nothing was given to them since July 17th. Mr. Scudder stated he asks applicants for a complete set of construction plans and saying that he is not the designer but gives his opinion on the project. Mr. Macri stated there had been questions regarding the septic system since day one. Mr. Scudder stated he does not have basic information; data regarding septic system concerns. He added that the SPEDES permit needs to be submitted before final approval is granted. Mr. Roberts moved to table the discussion until later in the meeting this evening. Mr. Macri expressed his concern regarding the septic system. He wanted to see the finished grading plans. SUBDIVISION NO. 16-86, Preliminary Approval Baybridge, Phase III Mr. Scudder approached the Board with the project permits. They were read into the record. Public Hearing Continued: John Caffrey, Queensbury Association, reiterated on what he said earlier in the meeting; the Board could be more strict about the wetlands. Mr. DeSantis stated that the Town does not have anyone in their hire to review wetlands as does the DEC. Board members stated that they rely on DEC. Mr. Scudder stated they had been through SEQR review and these issues had been discussed. Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Macri MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 16-86, Baybridge. Plans as submitted reflect the requirements. Approval is also based on consulting engineers review. Second by Mr. DeSantis. ',,-- 5 III g lassed Unanimously. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO.3 West Mountain Villages Mr. Roberts stated this is a mixed planned unit development of 2,785 acres off of West Mountain Road. Joseph Krzys introduced himself as planner for West Mountain Villages. He said that at the last meeting he was required to look at particular issues; traffic and density. Mr. Krzys stated he has addressed this issue via submittal of the preliminary traffic study. This report is appended to the minutes. See next following pages. Mr. Roberts stated that this planned unit development should be treated like the Hiland Park project. Mr. Krzys stated that he had written a letter dated July 9, 1987 to the Town Board requesting that the Town Board consider a resolution to initiate the Scoping Process for SEQR review. Bruce Erikson, engineer JJ Johnson, Sear Brown Associates, stated they have done a micro site plan (planning within the site) addressing density of 539 units on the Queensbury side. Traffic, sewer, water would be identified during SEQR process. Mr. Roberts stated that since the Town Board will hold a Scoping Meeting there should also be a public hearing (like that of the Hiland Park PUD). Mr. Roberts said that the Planning Board needs to be previo to that information before they can make a decision. Mr. Prime stated they need a work session. A broad spectrum of information is needed. A format and review of technical people is needed. Mr. Roberts said the Planning Board needs to hear the results from the Town Board before recommendations can be made by the Planning Board. Mr. Roberts said that time is a factor. The Town Board needs to hire an engineering reviewing firm and there has to be time to hold a public hearing. Mr. Erikson and Mr. Krzys both agreed to an extension of time and workshop sessions. Mr. DeSantis stated they need to make a motion similar to PUD No.1, Hiland Park and PUD No.2, Earltown. Mr. Prime requested periodic submission of reports by the developers. Mr. Prime asked if the Town of Lake Luzerne would be involved with the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Brennan, developer, stated both municipalities would meet at a date in the future to cooridinate the plans together. Mr. Prime asked for an update on the population census. He didn't want them to use a 1980 census. In talking about the traffic report, Mr. Roberts asked what superelevation meant. Mr. Krzys stated that it is the raising of the edge of the outside curve. There was more discussion regarding the traffic report. Mr. DeSantis MOVED for RECOMMENDATION that the Planning Board request -- 6 :it:. SEAR-BROWN ~ SSOClATES, P.C. -_,filiate of THE SEAR-BROWN GROUP ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS/SURVEYORS/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 3 COMPUTER DRIVE, ALBANY, NEW YORK 12205/518-458-2387 ROCHESTER, N,Y./CANTON. N,Y,/HORNELL. N.Y.lHORSEHEADS. N,Y,/MIAMI. FLA, 1 PARK CITY. UTAH June 22, 1987 Town of Queensbury, Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, New York 12801 ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Roberts Planning Board Chairman West Mountain Resort Conceptual Traffic Analysis RE: Dear Mr. Roberts: 14~ ¡/;,02.~:; ':it ;.'" . il~~~!' "LAN '/fll . . I!~NG &.., " 1r'\'~1 'Jt ~. ·~OJ;,¡·.,,.. ÃJjJ¡""l-,,¡'~'{(;jt"~';'.:I:': fll~ '- ". '"" J This report presents the results of a preliminary traffic analysis of the effects that development of the proposed West Mountain Resort would have on site/adjacent highway access intersections, The site is located west of the City of Glens Falls in Warren County, New York. A further purpose of the report is to initiate the Scoping process with the Towns of Queensbury and Lake Luzerne as it regards the improvement of an existing transportation facility, Luzerne Mountain Road in the Town of Queensbury and its continuation, Glens Falls Mountain Road in the Town of Lake Luzerne. This road will ultimately provide one of the principal access routes to the project site. The conceptual plan for the resort has four access points. Access to the skiing facility and the ski resort village is provided by two separate access roads, one to each area, off West Mountain Road (County Route 58). The major collector for the main resort area intersects with Call Street (County Route 32) to the south and Glens Falls Mountain Road to the north. Assumption A review of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation Manual", Third Edition, found information available to make preliminary estimates for travel '-..-- STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE h4 15'0 SEAR-BROWN West Mountain June 22, 1987 page 2 to a multi-use, resort facility. In order to estimate traffic generated by the site, assumptions were made about the character of each facet of the planned development, and adjustments were made accordingly. The five major categories which were used to estimate traffic generated by the proposed site are the planned areas for Single-Family Housing, Multiple-Family Housing, Condo/Hotel, Commercial, and Business Park. The corresponding land uses in "Trip Generation" IISingle-Family Dwelling," IITownhouses,1I Center"(50-99.9 Gross Leasable Area), and Square Feet). utilized "Resort "General in this study are Hotel," "Shopping Officell (100,000 Gross For Single-Family and Multiple-Family ("Townhousell) land uses, it is assumed that the majority of these dwellings are second homes or vacation homes and a 20% reduction in the number of trips generated was applied~ This reduction accounts for those units which may not be occupied on a full time basis, and the fact that these units are primarily destination type units with fewer trips originating overall. Trip generation data in "Trip Generation" is mostly for primary residences. The number of units proposed are 1,498 single-family and 1,287 multi-family. For the Business Park ("General Office") land use, IITrip Generation" offers an average of 8,000 square feet of office space for each acre of developed land. However, because of the nature of the proposed site development, a lesser density of 4,000 square feet for each acre was used. Therefore, it is assumed that the 38 acres of proposed business park will contain some 152,000 square feet of office space. For the Condo/Hotel (IIResort Hotelll), it is assumed that there will be 150 occupied rooms per location (total of 3 locations). For the Commercial Areas ("Shopping Center"), it is assumed that 5,000 square feet of gross leasable area will be developed for each acre of land proposed. The volumes so generated were then reduced by 50% assuming half of the generated traffic will be pass-by or "shopperts credit" traffic. Commercial areas in Queensbury will be split between the upper and lower mountain. A 30,000 SF commercial area is proposed for the upper mountain. 50,000 SF of commercial area is proposed to serve the lower mountain area, primarily offering support and service to skiing activities. Commercial development in Queensbury will not assume a 5,000 SF per acre density, but will be incorporated with other existiñg and proposed uses such as the ski lodges, hotels, etc. in addition to some new areas. West Mountain Ski Area anticipates the number of skiers on the slopes to be 200 during the weekday morning, 300 for weekday afternoon and evening, and 2,000 per day on the weekend. It is assumed that one skier per vehicle will arrive during the weekdays, and three skiers per vehicle will arrive on the weekends. -- bB 15/ SEAR-BROWN West Mountain June 22, 1987 Page 3 These assumptions were made in order to adapt preliminary information into a usable data base. The assumptions are given as a foundation to the analyses of potential traffic impact resulting from the final plan of development. It is understood that present land usage is preliminary only and may vary as a final plan of development is formalized. Site Access Considerations There are six major routes to the site that can be utilized. The main corridor is along Interstate 87 which runs north/south, east of the site. From Interstate 87, north and southbound travelers can exit onto Corinth Road (County Route 28). In addition, soUthbound travelers can exit onto West Mountain Road (County Route 58) five miles northeast of the site. Local travelers from the Glens Falls area can use Corinth Road from the city to the site. From the west, local travelers can use East River Drive. Long distance travelers can utilize state highways to Interstate 87. Using population data (1980 Census) for the surrounding counties along the main corridor, a gravity model was created to distribute traffic along the six approaches. This model resulted in 66% using northbound Interstate 87 to Corinth Road, 8% using Corinth Road from Glens Falls, 9% using southbound Interstate 87 to Corinth Road, 5% using Interstate 87 to West Mountain Road, 5% using East River Drive northwest of the site, and 5% using East River Drive southwest of the site. These approaches consist of the 6-lane interstate highway and county roads which generally have two 10-foot lanes and 5-foot shoulders. To determine the distribution of traffic at each access point, approach routes and land uses were considered. For the ski facility and the ski village off West Mountain Road, the traffic distribution was assumed to be 80% from the south since the majority of traffic arrives from the Interstate. The remainder will access from local roads out of the north. For the access drives on the main resort site, three separate distributions were used. For the single-family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, and the Condo/Hotel, the traffic was split 50/50 between the two entrances because the housing is fairly evenly distributed on the site. Also, learned driving habits will allow travelers to utilize local roads on their approach. For the Commercial area, the traffic was split based on the proximity of the area to the access drive. An 55/45 split was used since more than half of the total commercial property is located adjacent to the south access road. The Business Park has an 80/20 split because it is located adjacent to the south entrance. Learned driving habits will allow these daily users to utilize local roads to access the area from the north. ~ bt /j;L SEAR-BROWN vJest Mountain June 22, 1987 Page 4 To analyze the four access points, the generated traffic was estimated and distributed, and added to the existing traffic. Existing traffic was established using traffic counts obtained from the Warren County Department of Public Works. Two additional intersections on the existing highway system were analyzed to determine the effect of the traffic surcharge on their operation. Intersection Analysis Traffic volumes will increase on the local highway network as a result of the project. The following table shows· what volumes could be expected for the general growth of the area, with and withòut the project: Road Name Current In 5 yrs In 5 yrs w/o Devel w/ Deve 1 Corinth Road 2604 2737 10,200 (E. of CR 58) West Mt. Road 1031 1085 9, 123 (N. of CR 28) Call Street 3506 3685 9,894 (E. of Resort Ent) Glens Falls Mt. Road/ Luzerne Mt. Road 385 405 8,336 (E. of Resort Ent) Luzerne Mt. Road 1540 1620 8,618 (E. of W. Mt. Road) Using the traffic volumes generated for the area if the project is implemented, six intersections were analyzed: 1) Call Street/South Resort Access Road 2) Glens Falls Mountain Road/North Resort Access Road 3) West Mountain Ski Area/West Mountain Road 4) Ski Village Access Road/West Mountain Road. 5) Luzerne Mountain Road/West Mountain Road 6) Corinth Road/West Mountain Road Call Street is County Route 32 in the Town of Lake Luzerne, which is an extension of Corinth Road from the Town of Queensbury. Glens Falls Mountain Road runs between East River Drive and West Mountain Road. "- 01) /' /5"3 SEAR-BROWN West Mountain June 22, 1987 Page 5 Each intersection was analyzed using the methodologies for unsigna1ized intersections outlined in the Transportation Research Board1s "Highway Capacity Manua1". With the increased traffic volumes which will be using the intersections after the project has been completed, three of the intersections will not function satisfactorily without improvement. These intersections are: 1) Call Street/South Resort Access Road 2) Luzerne Mountain Road/West Mountain Road 3) Corinth Road/West Mountain Road . A signal and auxiliary lanes may be needed to facilitate the traffic movements through these intersections. In each instance, howevef, if is felt that feasible improvements can be made in order to insure satisfactory service to the public using these facilities. This analysis of potential traffic impacts has been conducted utilizing a conceptual land development plan. Re-evaluation of traffic will be conducted with each phase as it is developed to insure compliance with the traffic plan. Luzerne Mountain Road Luzerne Mountain Road is a town road in the Towns of Queensbury and Lake Luzerne. It will provide one of the principal access routes to the development. After crossing the Lake Luzerne/Queensbury town line, the road is known as Glen Falls Mountain Road. The existing road has very steep grades, sharp curves, limited guiderail, narrow shoulder areas, utility poles in close proximity to the traveled way, and other undesirable design characteristics. In general, the road is typical of a Town road found in mountainous terrain. It has adequate pavement width in both Towns and has a surface which appears to be hot mix asphalt concrete. The entire roadway is located within the Adirondack Park boundary. Roadway reconstruction outside the existing right of way will involve review by that agency which has published a standard entitled "Guide1ines for Constructing Local Roads in the Adirondack Park". Generally, Towns which have adopted these guidelines for use on projects within the park find that Agency acceptance of their roadway reconstruction proposals is expedited in the Agency1s review process. The use' of these standards would be appropriate for the improvement of Luzerne Mountain Road access corridor. ,~ bE /51-/ SEAR-BROWN West Mountain June 22, 1987 Page 6 '~ Full reconstruction of Luzerne Mountain Road to current design standards would cause major disruption to the mountainside if an attempt were made to limit the maximum grade on the reconstructed roadway. However, there is a great deal that can be done to this road to improve its serviceability without undertaking a massive regrading of a new right of way down the mountainside. While the existing road has grades as high as 16% over limited distances, these grades are typical of local roads found in mountainous terrain. Typically, the type of improvement which could be made to an existing road to enhance its service capacity and safety include: o Improvemerit of surface smooth~ess to obtain better rideability, and enhance safety. o Extend pavement life and restore skid resistance. o Stabilize and widen narrow shoulders. o Improve superelevation. o Reconstruct short sections which display particularly undesirable characteristics. o Upgrade signing and pavement marking. o Install guiderail, or other appropriate traffic barrier where required. These, and similar types of improvement can be made to an existing road without causing massive environmental disruption (See attached map). It is suggested that the following standards be used as a guide in the reconstruction of this roadway: Pavement width 24 feet Shoulder width (each side) 3 feet Design speed 30 mph e=0.06 ft/ft 300 feet Maximum superelevation Minimum curve radius ',--~ IoF _/ I t:> !J SEAR-BROWN West Mountain June 22, 1987 Page 7 '~ No maximum grade standard is included in the recommended project design criteria; to do so would dictate that complete reconstruction involving additional right of way and creating major impact to the effected mountainside area. To adopt these standards for this project would be in keeping with accepted design practice as defined in "Geometric Design Guide for Resurfacing, Restoration, and Rehabilitation (R-R-R) of Highways and Streets - 1977" as published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Their use will provide a road which will be adequate for the increased service demand, while still preserving the character of the surrounding area. Reconstruction of ~ short section of the' e~isting roadway, located to the east of Tuthill Road is recommended. This section of road is characterized by a series of sharp "switch back" curves, limited or adverse supere1evation, steep grades, and limited shoulder areas. A sketch plan showing the improvements which could be made to improve the alignment in this area are shown on the attached sketch plan. Otherwise, improvement of the existing roadway on its present alignment will provide an adequate transportation facility which is appropriate for the area which it will serve. Very truly yours, SEAR-BROWN ASSOCIATES, P.C. By~.ß?l. lU Frederick M. Howard P.E. "-- bGt ){fo to the Town Board to require an Environmental Impact Statement. This also includes l workshop session to keep the Planning Board informed. Second by Mr. Macri. Passed Unanimously. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-87, Preliminary Approval Cedar Court There was more discussion between Board members and Charles Scudder. Mr. Sudder stated he didn't have any problems with the concept. Mr. Macri, again, expressed his concern about the concept of the septic, roads, and grading. Mr. Steves stated that they will be submitting their plans to DEC and the Department of Health who will review the plans thoroughly and will comment on them. If changes need to be made (minor modifications) they will have to review these changes also. Mr. Macri expressed his concern on what the Board is being asked to approve; an application that is complete tonight or an application that will be complete. Mr. DeSantis stated, "If the plan that comes before this Board and is labled final, and is asked by this Board to be approved, it varies substantially from the Board that you're now asking us to approve for preliminary. I'm saying up front, given what's taken place this evening and up to this point, that I know, that I would have no problem saying no to final and also saying that this is not the same plan that was submitted for preliminary and say you're back to sketch plan. I'm just saying it up front on the recored so that the applicant knows that and if the final review by the retaining engineer for the Town results in that having to take place, we all known about it tonight up front and those decisions will be made on that basis. Now, if it comes back just as it is now with the minor changes that we see in the normal course of the business of this Board for final approval, I don't have any problem proceeding on the basis for preliminary approval tonight." Mr. Sudder stated, "The applicant has no objection to that understanding and that for final approval we will have this all worked out well before the hearing." Mr. Buckley said he wanted to clarify one thing, "Charlie has asked that we present some things in a different fashion, he his not asking that we change any basic perameters of the design or that we obtain additional information. There is not dispute over the design concept, it's the presentation that's in question." Mr. Roberts stated that this was still a public hearing. There were no comments from the public. Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Dybas MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of Subdivision No. 5-87, Cedar Court, '- 7 j{7 Phase I, 38 units having meet the initial requirements of the Board and that the plans 'vJe closely scrutinized by both parties prior to submission for this Board for final approval. Second by Mr. Macri. Passed Unanimoulsy. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 15-87 Dunham Brothers Mr. Roberts stated that this was tabled from the previous meeting. The application is to enlarge its 7,200 sq. ft. building to 14,400 sq. ft. for retail space (footwear and other leasable retail area) on the property situated on the corner of Routes 9 and 149 in a Highway Commercial 15 zone. Mr. Roberts asked if there was anyone present to represent the project. There wasn't anyone present. Mr. Roberts stated that no new plans had been submitted therefore the Board would not consider this application tabled again unless a new application was filled out and submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department. Board members agreed to drop this application as it will not be tabled again. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 17-87 Viking Enterprises Mr. Roberts stated that this was for construction of a 35 ft. by 136 ft. apartment building (8 apartments with total of 14 bedrooms) on the property situated on the west side of Bay Road, opposite the south end of Adirondack Community College campus. Mr. Martin read the minutes from the previous meeting of June 16, 1987. The location of the septic system was discussed. Mr. Montogomery who represent Mr. Bray, neighbor of Canterbury Woods, said that new plans showed that the septic system has been moved. Mr. Sudder stated he had done this in recommendation from the Planning Board and from Mr. Bray's suggestion. Mr. Scudder stated that Coulter and McCormack, surveyors measured 135 feet from Building D to Mr. Bray's well; it is indicated on the drawing. The public hearing had been left opened from the previous meeting. Public Hearing Continued: Mr. Montogomery said that Mr. Bray's concern is the significant concentration of development at this corner of the property which is closest to his adjoing property. He said the property immediately to the west is used to raise thoroughbred horses. Increased traffic was discussed. Mr. Montgomery said that Mr. ~ray is concerned about traffic head lights and noise at night. Mr. Montogomery expressed -~--' 8 /5<iS concern about the increased density on and around the site. Mr. DeSantis stated, "The density that is allowable on a project site is set by zoning. If you take that density and put it in an area that meets all of the other constraints and they are admitting that we know about traffic, drainage, stormwater, waste water disposal - we meet those constraints, I know, if it's within our jurisdiction to tell somebody where to put it on his lot, I mean I just have some problem with that! I understand that the neighbors would like to see it on the other side of the property and the neighbors on the other side may come to us next month and say, we like to see it on the other side of the property." Mr. DeSantis said that he understands that maybe no neighbors would like to see it next to them. But if you meet all the constraints and I agree with you that maybe this isn't a UR-5 zone, that the amount of density that's there is very high." Mr. Montogomery discussed at length his objections to the project. Mr. Montogomery discussed the possibility of buffering on the south side. Mr. Scudder and Board members discussed how many bedrooms there actually are. There is a den and a study room. Mr. Sudder stated that there are 12 bedrooms. Board members discussed the possiblity of overnight guests sleeping in the den and study rooms. If the possibility exists, then it wilI definitly impact on parking and the septic system. The parking situation was discussed. Mr. Macri stated that there needs to be room for visitors to park. Mr. Scudder stated that he is looking for parking with minimum black topping. Mr. DeSantis said they would need 12 parking spaces paved per building. There should be auxilIary parking; 3 - 4 unpaved spaces per building. Mr. Martin went through the checklist. Mr. Montgomery continued to discuss what he felt is a problem with density. Mr. DeSantis stated, "I have a problem with the consistent use of the word problem. This is a UR-5 zone, this property is being built out as zoned. The UR-5 is just what it says, the definition is up there on the wall map, is the highest density zone allowable in the Town of Queensbury. It's been zoned that way since the zoning plan was adopted. There's no problem here in the fact that used as zoned; it generates traffic, traffic at night, hopefully it's in accordance with the traffic law - has headlights on it. That generates light at night. I have a problem with asking a person using their property as zoned to do something special because their neighbor is using the property as allowed under a variance which is perfectly legitimate, but to do that, is to open up a can of worms that goes far beyond, I think, would - with this particular one - 100 foot or 80 foot section of vegetation may solve - and that's what concerns me here because we have this situation as I think you can appreciate, throughout the community. And if that is what's going to happen to people who use their property as zoned, believe me, when someone requests a variance in the future, even though it may be quote IIA Good Idea" in an objectional use which I think Mr. Bray's use of this property certainly is, in my personal opinion, they may come out in force later on, somebody is going to find out and object, because they've got a variance next doot, to there use as zoned." Mr. Montogomery reiterated Mr. Bray's concern that there should be buffer between his property and the proposed development. Mr. Macri stated that the Master Plan for the project was submitted before Mr. Bray moved in next door. '~ 9 /59 '~ Public Hearing Closed. Mr. Macri MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 17-87, Viking Enterprises, Canterbury Woods for construction of an 8 apartment building consisting of a total of 12 bedrooms. Based on our discussion this evening and our engineers review, there wilI be additional parking, promised to be provided which would be 12 paved per building plus 4 auxilIary spaces per building. Second by Mrs. Levandowski. Passed Unanimously. SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 19-87 Adirondack Construction Corporation Mr. Roberts read the application to construct an office building (103,307 sq. ft.) with parking on the property situated at Quaker Road in a Plaza Commercial lA zone. The land is owned by Earltown Corporation. Richard Jones, Architect and Victor Macri, President of the Adirondack Construction Corporation represented the project. They said the building would be in a 13 lot commercial strip owned by the Earltown Corporation. Parking was discussed. Mr. Jones said there would be a total of 68 spaces for parking. He said this would be a two story building made of brick veneer. The adjacent vacant lot was discussed; there is ~ total acres for both lots. Mr. Prime said that the Board can't address that particulaf\?Jcant lot; it's not part of the site plan application being addressed this evening. The building permit would be issued just for the lot discussed. Public Hearing Opened: no comment Public Hearing Closed. Warren County Planning Board recommended approval. Mr. Martin went through the checklist. Mr. Martin MOVED APPROVAL of Site Plan Review No. 19-87, Adirondack Construction Corporation for a building of 20,300 sq. ft. Second by Mr. Dybas. Passed 5 yes (Roberts, Martin, Dybas, Levandowski, DeSantis), 1 absent (Mann), Macri excused himself as he represented the project. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ~ (jLlJ 4 CR/Jr Richard Roberts, Chairman 10 Minutes prepared by Susan Davidsen