Loading...
1988-08-16 -""'-- ''\. I "--' ,- ~, QUEENS BURY TONK PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting: Tuesday, August 16, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. Present: Richard Roberts, Chairman Joseph Dybas Peter Cartier Frank DeSantis Hilda Mann, Secretary Susan Levandowski Victor Macri Paul Dusek, Council Lee York, Sr. Planner Quentin Kestner, Town Mary Jane F. Moeller, Daniel Ling, Asst. Designated Consultant Stenographer Planner Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Rules and Procedures of the Town of Queensbury Planning Board were discussed with Lee York, Sr. Planner. Time limitations of public presentations will not be defined at the present time in the Rules and Procedures, hopefully, Staff screening of applications and other assistance would make this un- necessary. Mr. Roberts stated his approval of a Vice Chairman, in addi- tion, he suggested that there be a position of Vice Secretary. Mr. Roberts felt there was some confusion in the role of Secretary, Ms. York explained that more than one person could act as secretary - it does not have to be a designated ·one-person· job. Mr. Dusek stated that further research has to be conducted into this area, therefore, Mr. Roberts sug- gested that the Rules and Procedures not be voted on by the Board at this meeting. The following minutes were accepted as written: June 19, 1988 - Regular Meeting, June 23, 1988 - Dixon Heights, Phase III, Preliminary Approval, June 23, 1988 - Special Scheduled Meeting, and June 30, 1988 - Special Scheduled Meeting, PUD No.2, Earltown NEW BUSIRESS SITE PLAN NO. 32-88 Edwards, Williams, McManus The application is for an addition to the Accountant's office, 79 Glenwood Avenue, 500 ft. West of Bay Road on the South side, HC-1S. Mr. Thomas Collura of Richard E. Jones Associates represented the project and stated that the project is a 4500 sq. ft., two-story addition 1 to the existing building. To accommodate the expansion a total of 40 parking spaces would be added; some along the front eastern portion of the property. An existing entrance off Glenwood has been relocated, about 30 feet to the east, and will pass between the two buildings. Regarding drainage, at this point the flow is generally towards Half Way Brook, and advantage will be taken of present storm sewers and catch basins. The east parking lot will be drained to the west. Mrs. Mann read a statement from Dan Ling regarding computation of the gross floor area in determining the required parking area and clarification of professional versus commer- cial use (Exhibit A); he feels an Interpretation in both of these areas may be necessary. Mr. Kestner discussed four pertinent areas. 1) the water service is adequate, Central Queensbury facilities will be available probably by November to service the addition; 2) the storm sewer is owned by the County, there is a culvert in the center of the parking lot; 3) changing the area from grass to a paved area will have an impact, ENCON does not have a problem with the drainage that goes to Half Way Brook now; 4) the possibility of a non-conforming entry way; if the building is commercial, the requirement is for a separation between the egress and the ingress. (Exhibit B). There was some discussion regarding the 50 foot setback of the parking lot from Half Way Brook and the high water mark of streams or lakes. Sec- tion 7.011-B of the Ordinance states. -No fill or hard surfacing shall be permitted within 50 feet of any lake, pond, river, stream or wetland ex- cept by Site Plan approval of the Planning Board.- Mr. Collura verified that the eight spaces directly south of the building are already paved. On the eastern part of the property there is an area not presently paved; the entire strip starting at Glenwood Avenue and runs within 58 feet of the stream. Mr. DeSantis was concerned about the southerly end of the easterly side of the property where the proposed grade will run from 92 to 93 1/2. He suggested that the artificial berm be made larger east to west, so the water could get around the berm more easily. Mr. Collura said the sugges- tion could be accommodated. Public Hearing. Dr. George Wiswall: Resident on Glenwood Avenue Dr. Wiswall expressed concern about the roadway that goes through the property; the proposal is for relocation of a two-way road. He requested clarification as to whether it is a right-of-way opened to the public, traffic for the bank only, or the accounting office. Dr. Wiswall expressed his opinion that, if it is a private drive, the roadway should be closed during the times that the bank is not in operation. Dr. Wiswall felt that all blacktop within 50 feet of the high water mark of Half Way Brook should be removed and the land put back into its original form. 2 Mr. Tony Ricciardeli, a priniciple of the accounting firm, confirmed that the right-of-way is a mutual road that is considered private, each firm is responsible for its section. There is concern about the public using the road, therefore, speed bumps will be added to slow down the traffic. Further discussion ensued regarding the fact that some proposed park- ing spaces back into the thoroughfare areas, in addition to the number of spaces that will be blacktopped. There was a suggestion that the center entrance/exit be eliminated, but Mr. Ricciardeli felt that idea would prove to be more hazardous, because traffic would then be routed behind the buildings. He also felt that the proposal calls for more parking spaces than would be needed. The nature of the accounting business is seasonal and does not affect the number of employees, the employees are out of the office most of the time, except during tax season, January - April. Presently, there are 38 employees. The addition will be utilized for some additional office space, but mostly for ancillary services, increased computer facility, conference rooms, storage facility, secretar- ial, etc. There might be an addition of 15 new employees over the next three to five years, the existing parking would accommodate that number. At the present time, the parking lot is never full. Under the new proposal, ten parking lots will be lost along the build- ing. The Board suggested eliminating eight new spaces along Half Way Brook and removing the two most southerly spots on the west end of the pro- perty. To compensate for the loss, 20 spaces would be added, 10 spots on each side of the road. A 20 foot strip along Half Way Brook would be re- stored as permeable. Mr. Kestner agreed with what was being done, and re- quested that the suggestions be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Ling felt that the parking near the entrances propose a hazard and re- quested that they be removed. Dr. Wiswall commented that, as the area grows, the right-of-way even- tually will be a public thoroughfare in the future. provisions such as signs, traffic control and a 50-foot right-of-way should be planned for at this point in time. Bob Eddys Beautification Committee Mr. Eddy requested that the fact that professional offices, who by law must have a license to operate, be taken into consideration. Public Hearing Closed Correspondences Warren County approved. Mr. DeSantis moved to TABLE Site Plan No. 32-88, Edwards, Williams, McManus, Ricciardeli and Coffey, P. C., pending action of the Zoning Board of Appeals on a revised plan based on our discussions. The revised plan would include at a minimum: 3 1) removal of all existing blacktop along Half Way Brook to a distance within 20 feet of the Southwest corner of the building (approximate- ly 10 parking spaces), 2) removal of three parking spaces along Glenwood Avenue closest to the entrances, and 3) construction of no more than 23 hard surface parking spaces on the east end of the property, with those spaces commencing at the North end of the property at Glenwood Avenue and proceeding in a souther- ly direction. Mr. Tony Ricciardeli, principle of Edwards, Williams, McManus, con- sented to TABLE the application. Seconded by Mrs. Levandowski. Passed 6 Yes (Levandowski, Dybas, Mann, Roberts, Cartier, DeSantis) 1 Abstain (Macri) SITE PLAR NO. 33-88 Larry N. and JoAnn M. King The application is to enclose the existing 10 ft. x 24 ft. deck at 93 Sunnyside North, SR-30. Mr. Larry King represented the project and stated that the proposal is to alter the deck, with no change to the existing dimensions. The Warren County Planning Board had two concerns: 1) response of the neighbors and 2) effect on the septic system. A new septic system was put in two years ago, the change would have no effect, because the enclosure is strictly a sun room. Regarding the neighbors, he presented responses from two neigh- bors, who had no objections, other neighbors not in attendance had no objections. Public Hearing Opened: no comment. Correspondence: Warren County approved (as above). Mr. Dybas moved APPROVAL of Site Plan No. 33-88, Larry N. and JoAnn M. King, because of no adverse effects, the deck was already there. Seconded by Mrs. Mann. Passed 6 Yes (Levandowski, Dybas, Mann, Cartier, DeSantis, Macri) 1 No (Roberts) 4 '- P.U.D. No. 3 8-11,-B8 West Mountain Planned Unit Development Purpose. In order for the Planning Board to make recommendations to the Town Board for or against rezoning the West Mountain area for the Planned Unit Development, as conceptually presented. No Public Hearing. Mr. Joseph T. Krzys, a partner with Michael Brandt and co-owner of West Mountain Villages Inc., represented the project. Mr. Roberts reviewed that the Planning Board was allowed to delay their review until after the public hearings on the SEQR process had been held, the Board is in receipt of all comments from the meetings and now recommendation must be made pro/con to the Town Board regarding rezoning, under the language of the Planned Unit Development. Mr. Krzys stated that, in the process of preparing the SEQR, modifica- tions have been made to the original Master Plan to encompass many of the comments that were made through the SEQR process. Plan is being established under Planned Unit Development of the Town of Queensbury Ordinances, which will be good for the life of the project 20 years (as opposed to small parcels being devel- oped) , plan will meet an unaddressed second home market, 3900 jobs will be created, study was part of the DEIS, extensive job training, goals are for quality homes, in terms of construction, $37MM of recreational facilities will be provided, provision of tax profits as part of DEIS, excess profits going to each of the towns, Queensbury Town Board, as lead agency, has entered into an inter- municipal agreement with the town of Lake Luzerne. Since the last meeting, several changes have taken place. 1) Luzerne-Mountain Road. This road goes through 100 acres of APA land, in which there is a logging road. Originally the developers estab- lished this road as one of the main entrances/exits of the property. Because of the Planning Board opposition, the developers and the two towns involved have agreed that this road will be used solely as an emergency road. 2) Two entrances have been established, both on the Luzerne side of the project. Corinth Road and Call Street. There will be a ·loop· road system within the park. 5 ---- 3) There will be no hotels or housing developments at the bottom of the property, only those projects which will support the ski area. 4) A fire station will be built in Queensbury, the employees will be volunteers and will be trained. 5) The 15,000 constructed. seat stadium for the Volvo Tennis Tournament will not be Instead there will be a temporary stadium of 3500 seats. 6) Density has been dropped to the numbers allowable under the current zoning or 273 units. 7) Regarding structed Dam. the sewer system, a secondary treatment plant will be con- in Lake Luzerne, with the effluent going in above the Spire 8) A new traffic study is being conducted, basically because of the APA land not being within the development. Exit 16 would be a main route, in order to get to the entrances at the back of the property, a new road is presently under construction. For those persons entering from Exit 18, pUblic parking will be estab- lished at the base of the mountain and transportation up and down will be via two funiculars. Therefore, the traffic within the resort would be created only by the homeowners, there would be a guard gate. A funicular is a trolley which moves people up and down the mountain at a rate of 3000/hour, 150 people at a time, a rail system on rubber wheels located at the base of the mountain. 9) A stipulation regarding trash would be written into the Homeowners Association Documents that all trash would be recycled, bins would be built into the homeowners' kitchens for ease of separation. 10) ENCON was concerned about trout in some of the upper streams. After a thorough study, there appear to be no trout in water that averages between 65- and 83- - a climate felt to be too warm for trout. 11) Per ENCON's concern about storm water drainage, detention ponds will be redesigned into smaller ponds. Mr. Krzys confirmed that the sewage will go into the Hudson River six miles above the water plant, on the other side of Spire Dam. ENCON felt that the new system resolved all of their requirements. Regarding traffic, there will be an internal shuttle, which will facil- itate movement for residents, both within the park and to the funicular. Parking at the base of the mountain was of concern, because it most likely would be used by homeowners for permanent car storage and for the public. 6 ~ Michael Brandt, co-owner, discussed the traffic study. He questioned if four-lane roads were needed. Originally, the traffic study took into consideration the Luzerne Mountain entrance/exit and the 15,000 stadium for the Volvo tournament. Mr. Brandt said he could possibly see Corinth Road or Call Street as a four-lane road, but not West Mountain Road from the ski area north. Mr. Dybas disagreed, in that Aviation Road, the shopping malls, etc. are ·where the action is,· and was concerned about future traffic when developments in addition to West Mountain use Aviation Road. Mr. Brandt said many of the commercial needs will be satisfied at the shopping centers within the resort. Mr. Roberts said the Town is requesting another entrance from the Northway at Sherman Avenue. Other streets are also being addressed also. Mr. Krzys mentioned that a suggestion was made in the DEIS that a commit- tee be formed between the County and the Towns to keep a constant watch on traffic growth in the above-mentioned areas. He stated that the develop- ers now are asking for conceptual approval based on what SEQR shows. He confirmed that the two towns would stipulate the usage of Luzerne Mountain Road. There are many forms of monitoring the traffic flow, further study into technology, etc. will determine the best method. Members ing control control of rezone their of the Planning Board felt the need for clarification regard- over the lands that belong to the same project but are under two towns. Mr. Roberts mentioned that each town would have to own land, working in harmony with the other community. Some Board members were disturbed that the funicular was a newly pre- sented issue at this meeting and that there was no time for preparation to discuss this access point, which is a substitution for the former Luzerne Mountain Road access point in the Town of Queensbury. There will be ap- proximately 80,000 square feet of commercial space at the top of the moun- tain open to the public that would be approached by the funicular. The current capacity for the lift is 4,000/hour. The new traffic study was started about four to five weeks ago. A factory located at the back of the property in Luzerne, which will manufacture wood for on-site construction. Dennis MacElroy, Consulting Engineer, said that pending the findings of the traffic study and additional information acquired, there may be a further public meeting. Joseph Brennan, Attorney for West Mountain Village, stated that the developers do not agree with the legal interpretation regarding certain questions and provisions of SEQR that has been submitted by Mr. MacElroy relative to whether a supplemental DEIS is required. He stated that in order to start the process, the Town Board had to accept the DEIS as sub- mitted and say that it is complete for the purpose of creating or causing the process under SEQR to go forward, that procedure has been done. At 7 ~ this particular point, the consultants for the Town have made a recommenda- tion that, because of information required in the traffic study, there should be a supplemental DEIS. Two changes have been citedl a) the den- sity to comply with the Queens bury Ordinance and 2) the fact that Luzerne Mountain Road will no longer be a primary access to the site. Mr. Brennan further stated that the two issues under SEQR have to be addressed, but they do not have to be addressed in a supplemental DEIS, but in a FDIS which is an issue for the Town Board. Mr. Krzys confirmed to Mr. DeSantis that there has been no mention of a funicular and its impact in anything submitted previously to this Plan- ning Board, except in the master plan. Comments and changes made tonight have come out of the public process in Lake Luzerne and Queensbury. The only item that is not in the DEIS is the traffic study, because that is on- going. Mr. Dusek referred to Article 15.073 in the Zoning Ordinance and asked the Board if they have enough information to make a recommendation. Members of the Board felt that more information was needed, in addition to the traffic study. Article 15.073 1. through 11. Application for Sketch Plan Approval was read into the record by Mrs. Mann (ExhibitC ). Mr. Brennan reviewed that the developers agreed to prepare and submit a DEIS to the Board for its consideration. He does not agree that it is a matter of regulations that the Planning Board is really entitled to a DEIS prior to the time that it makes its recommendation pro/con to the project. After reading Article 15.073 of the Ordinance, Mr. Brennan is not certain which of the provisions, because the plan is conceptual, the Planning Board is entitled to receive. In response, Mr. DeSantis referred to 15.073 (d).(4), -There are adequate services and utilities available or proposed to be made available in the construction of the development.- Reference was also made to the minutes of December 2, 1987, Page 6 (Exhibit þ). Mr. Brennan also felt that the Planning Board is going far beyond the Conceptual Concept, when it requests traffic studies done to determine the volume of traffic and impact on Aviation Road, its affect on Exit 18 and its affect on West Mountain Road. He does not feel that 15.073 (d).(4) relates to utilities and services available or to be made available in the construction of the development. Mr. Macri emphasized again that there are matters this evening which were not presented to the Board previously, and he strongly feels that they should be formally pre- sented to the Planning Board for proper review, in order to have a logical decision reached. Mr. DeSantis also referred to Article 15.073 (b).(2) and 15.087, which referred to the staging of the development. Mr. Macri requested to see plans for the introstructure and how the utilities, roads, main arteries, etc. will be developed in relation to construction over the years. He further emphasized that this entire development is unique in that two towns are involved and the Board wants to know how the developers plan to deal with that situation. Mr. Roberts reviewed that, in order to give Conceptual approval under 8 ,~ the PUD, the Board would like to see a phasing plan, traffic study and basic plan, and clarification of agreements between the two communities, especially whether or not Queensbury is to review anything that crosses the Town line. Mr. Cartier requested to know more about stream buffering and the secondary sewage treatment. Due to the fact that the Board does not feel there is sufficient information to make a sound decision, Mr. Krzys agreed to an extension of time. Mrs. Levandowski moved to TABLE P.U.D. No.3, West Mountain Planned Unit Development, for further information regarding the following: Traffic Study, Phasing Plan, Agreement between the Towns of Lake Luzerne and Queensbury. Seconded by Mr. Dybas. pass.d Unanimously Mr. Roberts adjourned the meeting at 11100 p.m. ~ ",ß ~ ?, J) _ C/¿;V ) ð 'dt'\~l . Richard Roberts, Chairman Date 9- 7-fj/ Date 9 '- -..-/ WEST MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, INC. WEST MOUNTAIN RESORT: A TRULY SENSITIVE. WELL-PLANNED RURAL COMMUNITY How will West Mountain· benefit the region? Forward thinking and orderly planning Meets unaddressed second-home market Creating high quality job opportunities for young people Job training Wide range of quality homes Increased entertainment and educational programs Stimulates local economy and local businesses Tax profits to towns and county Totally planned community away from area population growth Changes to the original plan for West Mountain Resort: 1. Looped road system. with entrances at the back of the property 2. Luzerne Mountain Road is now an emergency access only 3. No housing development at the base 4. Fire station. with voluntary staffing required of the employees, built at the top in Queensbury. 5. Smaller tennis stadium 6. Density reduced in Queensbury to existing density 7. Sewer system is a secondary treatment system with effluent fed into _ the Hudson River above Spiers Fall Dam, approximately six miles from Queensbury and supported by ENCON. 8. New traffic study being done 9. Funicular to move people to the top village; appears feasible 10. Recycling of trash written into HOA agreement and built into homes 11. Storm-water runoff being modified based on input from ENCON. In place of large detention ponds. a series of smaller retention facilities will be used. , 11 North Pearl Street· Albany, New York 12207 . (518) 434-15ö9 ,< .~# '- Jown 0/ Queenðbup'fj ,-- ..~' FILE COpy r:::ç. -NOTE TO FILE- 4 Q/J/~9 o 7 Oc;..' Planning and Zoning Department DANIEL UNG, ASSISTANT PLANNER Application Number: r; ih ¡"þ>l...1 Applicant/Project Name: f),c Ie. JðnJ2 ~ ,S U ; 111''\'' Î}1 ..¡JILl.. by on!; froc-lny ~~ , , I .I ./ '. ...; r~;~ :..,'r.¡Y'~'..-'f;: .- Sì 1'1 cc.. = '-/ S sf'JCC::' _ Lf I "5/0, CC~ S rJ: d~i+ìtYtQ I IJ , ,(J~ S wðY\ ~ 8ÐOn\ Jas\«Lio I \ + .1- "J I , f'fK' "--1 S·'I '^-' [1,)y) IJ f- 17' c5 FC c. :$ ;- :ì ~~Q. ( t "" 1'1 iii'll -h, ð . '1.: ~ t ~!·J''''1 ì n ~ " ".qy! ¡ C ~t-C - b'Dðc? f =: . I :: iDoo f - 80 ~f'J ,. f> (~ '- , ~ ">.....,J. 'i 0 <5f'H C S. \ '2. 0 s[X' c (: So I '1 0 ..).. L\ C - . I" ... ' ......> ...., I b 5" it,-h.,,' st) t( ~ . .. DANŒL UNG Assistant Planner BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832 E 'f./I/ð rr f} I SETTLED 1763. . . HOME OF NATURAL BFAUTY . . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE Jown 0/ Queen:16uJ''j -' . .O::U ~ -NOTE TO FILE- 4 Planning and Zoning Department DANIEL UNG, ASSISTANT PLANNER Application Number: Applicant/Project Name: I f Ifu. in ,\ rA y¡, ~ c.(. "fR~ ;;¡ Cðy¡" ;:{c ¡"{,f -/. /!;. q . (fjr.t:1b^F" c, q J fA &{ , -Ittc 1'1 '1600 pi; - 2 2 yew:" II! hìc 6 bJ ð>1ld \{(CTII'I'rl. 1'-11 0IOU?S ~~,.. 102- sfc{Ce~'\ O'fe re¡u;'r-eJ f' ~/~ er.siN¡ ,,;,¡) ih1S ~"'n ,"h£L" .Jt¡¡~ ¡h-k'lfre!-Þ-!¡",. ~ t'ny V;Qv)) ìs DANmL UNG Assistant Planner BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE:(518) 792-5832 ¡;Xffll3lí I!J- SETTLED 1763. .. HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE ~ Jown 0/ Queenjburf¡j '-~'-'- ~ -NQTE TO FILE- Planning and Zoning Department DANIEL LING, ASSISTANT PLANNER Application Number: Applicant/Project Name: ~)'\. -$. ; ( 'f~_ ðc~ ~ I y- I [;t9. (b 10 ( (If ,3 CHC. (Ocn , 50/(: r> ( hnrokì C\\~µNçe <\~<>~ 'M a!r<Lry f',,&A. ~(L ß;~'n:'~ a ~M (j Cr'M.\.-Jtv -VJ.L \\'l(\rfc.scc( ,\rVn~~~~ f~M{f ~ _ ~~ ~m~0~ w~l~ .fq",-l ~ +f~ ~ ~ '^~ ~'rL_, ~ "'tf R"'I1 f ~ ç ÞeH1 ; nf~>nQrf -I~A ,~ ! 'ò, , l'þ );~.v \. ',. ." " g Î)) I ()í) - t \~ ooJ .lCi Ìh ~~. Q ~Q\:IÖ)'\~ \ £IomJ I't\c;~~Y1 c(? .p(;, \ n 'M k1-t 'l~i\í't k ,,'b+~~ Yfl~h ;y,.,v 6u\lc\~ ~ G,jps 01{; BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK. 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832 £'j..jfl,ð/T #3 SETTLED 1763... HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE .. -- ESTABLISHED IN 1955 KESTNER ENGINEERS, P. C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS JOSEPH A. KESTNER, R.. P.E., L.S. MARK L. KESTNER, P.E. QUENTIN T. KESTNER, P.E. ANTHONY M. KESTNER, B.S. ,4 ONE KESTNER LANE TROY, NLW YORK 12180 518-273-7446 K. WAYNE BUNN, P.E. JAMES J. SHAUGHNESSY. P.E. JEROME THORNE. S.E.T. August 12, 1988 f"i{ I: CI} P r Ms. Lee York Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Queensbury Town Office Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, NY 12801 Building . RE: site Plan No. 32-88 79 Glenwood Avenue Dear Ms. York: I have reviewed the subject site plan as depicted on Drawing Nos. L-1 and L-2 dated June 29, 1988, by Richard E. Jones, Associates. My review was limited to the new facilities and whether the water, sewer, and drainage conformed to existing Town Planning Standards: 1. The existing buildings are served by the Queensbury Water District and adequate flow is available to serve the planned addition. 2. The proposed sanitary sewer facilities of the Central Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District under Contract No. 4 are scheduled to be completed by the late Fall of thi:s year and will be available to serve the addition as well as the existing two buildings on the site. 3. The site plan shows an additional parking area of approximately 70' X 200' which contains an additional approximate 37 parking spaces. This area presently drains to the existing County storm-sewer system and will continue to do so when changed to a paved parking area. I consider this additional increased drainage area as limited in size, and because the area already drains to these culverts; I would consider this arrangement as conforming to the intent of the regulations. It is my understanding that the County has no objection to the use of this storm sewer for the proposed parking area and that the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation has no objection to the discharge to Halfway Brook. MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING WATER. SEWAGE, AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT FEDERAL/STATE GRANT APPLICATIONS PRECISION SURVEYING AND GROUND CONTROL TELEVISION PIPELINE INSPECTION. METERING & SAMPLING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ¡; '/.#/.5/ r <is / ----' , '. Ms. Lee York Senior Planner -2- August 12, 1988 4 I would note that the proposed relocated entrance appears to be non-conforming with Section 7.071, Paragraph D (Page 95). This section requires a physical barrier separating the ingress and egress areas of the access point. Dan Ling may wish to review this with the developer. . Sincerely, KESTNER ENGINEERS'~ . . ~ -- Quentin T. Kestner, P.E. Vice President QTK/cp cc: Dan Ling, Assistant Planner EX ¡-)-/I9IT 19 ~ ¡g a , n .. ~ ) C' !;. ..~' 15.070 PUD Application Procedure and Approval Process. 15.071 General. Whenever any planned unit development is proposed, and before any contract is made for the sale of any part thereof, before any building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be granted, and before any subdivision plat may be filed in the office of the County Clerk; the prospective developer or his authorized agent shall apply for and secure approval of such PUD in accordance with the procedures herein. 15.072 Notice of Intent. Prior to filing an application for sketch plan approval, the developer shall submit ~ letter of intent to the Town Board for referral to the .Planning Board. 15.073 Application for Sketch Plan Approval. a. In order to allow the Planning Board and the deve~oper to reach an understanding on basic design requirements prior to detailed design investment, the developer shall submit a sketch plan of his proposal to the Planning Board. The. sketch plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer, licensed architect or a landscape architect and shall be approximately to scale, though it need not be to the precis~on of a finished engineering drawing; and it shall clearly show the following information: acres; 1. The location of the various uses and their areas in 2. The general preliminary outlines of the interior roadway system and all existing rights-of-way and easements, whether public or private; 3. Delineation of the various residential areas indicating for each such area its general extent, size and composition in terms of total number of dwelling units, approximate·· percentage allocation by dwelling unit type (1.e., single-family detached, duplex, townhouse, garden apartments, condominiums) and general description of the intended market structure (i.e., luxury, middle-income, elderly units, family units, etc.); plus a calculation of the residential density in dwelling units per gross acre (total area inCluding interior roadways) for each such area. . ettin~ forth 4. The interior open space system; 5. The overall drainage system including Achemat1c'" the plan for storm water management; , 6. If grades exceed three pe~cent (3\), or portions of the site have a moderate to high susceptibility to erosion, or a -5- 1: y. H/ß/T ~'I .~- moderate to high susceptibility to flooding and ponding, a topographic map showing contour intervals of not more than 10 feet of elevation shall be provided, along with 'an overlay outlining the above susceptible soil areas, if any; 7. facilities. 8. General description of the provision community facilities, such-as schools, fire'protection and cultural facilities, if any, and some indication of needs are proposed t~ be accommodated; Availability of roadways, water and sewage of other services, how these 9. A location map showing uses and òwnershi~ of abutting lands. 10. Architectural renderings or drawings of the structures within the development. 11. Historic sites or buildings shall be identified and a plan for their preservation must be noted. b. In addition, the following documentation shall accompany the sketch plan: 1. Genéral Statement as to how common open space is to be owned and maintained; 2. If the development is to be staged, a indication of how the staging is to proceed. Whether or development is to be staged, the sketch plan of this shall show the intended total project; 3. Appropriate documentation of compliance with NYS SEOR shall be prepared and submitted to the Town Board. For purposes of this Article the Town Board shall be considered the lead agency. If necessary, a final envir.onmental impact statement shall be' filed prior to Town Board action creating the PUD District. general not the section c. The Planning Board shall review the sketch plan and its related documents; and shall render either a favorable report to the Town Board or an unfavorable report to the applicant. The Planning Board may call upon any public or private consultants that they feel are necessary to provide a spund' revie\{ of the proposal. In addition to the fee listed on the schedule of fees, the Planning Board may charge a fee to developers of' projects requiring legal and technical review provided that the fee cHarged ' reflects the actual cost of legal and technical assistance to the Planning Board. This fee is not to exceed $1,000.00 without consent of the applicant. -6- .E 'j.fJ/ð/l' ,f} J- " '-- -- decision and its reasons for disapproval. A copy of the appropriate min~tes may suffice for this notice. 15.087 Staging. If the applicant wishes to stage his 'development, and he has so ind~cated as per Section 15.073 (b).(2) then he may submit only those 'stages he wi~hes to develop for site plan approval in accordance with his staging plan. 'Any plan which requires more than twenty-four (24) months to be completed shall be required to be staged; an~ a staging plan must be developed. 15.090 OTHER REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. 15.091 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. .. a. Prior to the issue of building permits, the developer may be required to post performance bond'(s) pursuant to, and in accordance with the same procedures as provided for in Section 277 of New York Town Law, in sufficient amounts and duration to assure that all streets or other public places shown on the' PUD Plan shall be suitably graded and paved and that sidewalks, street lighting standards, curbs, gutters, street trees, water mains, fire alarm signal devices including necessary ducts and cables or other connecting facilities, sanitary sewers and storm drains shall all be installed in accordance with standards, specifications and procedure acceptable to the appropriate Town of Queensbury Departments. b. Alternatively, such improvements may be installed by the developer in 'accordance with standards, specifications and procedure acceptable to the appropriate Town of Queensbury departments. . . 15.092 Construction After PUD Approval. If no evidence of progressive activity has occurred pursuant to the adopted plan (a) within one year of the date of the adoption of the' PUD, or (b) upon expiration of any extension of time for starting development granted by the Town Board, the approved plan shall become null and void and a new precise plan shall be required for any development on subject property. 15.093 Compliance With Plan After Construction Started. . After general construction commences, the Town of Queensbury Senior Planner shall review, at least once every six (6), months, all building permits issued and compare them to the overall development phasing program. If he determines that the rate of construction of residential units, or nonresidential structures substantially differs from the phasing program, he -13- . £ X}fll3l r Ø3 -' ~ Mr. Macri stated his concern about construction traffic, especially the traffic going over the Corinth Bridge. He wanted to know how that subject had been addressed. Mr. Howard answered that a separate construc- tion phasing analysis had been done. Mr. Macri said that has to be grouped in with the normal day-to-day traffic, because it is going to be concurrent for so many years. The fact that turn lanes are not being included until 1991, when that particular area is being developed, that is going to be a problem with the traffic that is on the road now, especially the construction traffic. Mr. Howard agreed that is a good point. Mr. DeSantis requested that the traffic numbers for construction, sales and residential vehicles be taken into consideration, in addition to the substantial number of people that will be attending promotional events (4,000 cars/day) to assist in the marketing of the resort. Those are going to be happening concurrently through the· early phases. Mr. DeSantis felt that those numbers have not been addressed or anticipated Mr. Krzys said it has to be worked out with the town and is being addressed in the DEIS report. Mr. Krzys answered the statement about sales up front. While the site is under development, it will be very difficult to take people to the top of the mountain. We will be working mainly from a sales office, that may not only be in Glens Falls, but at various locations in the country. There will not be thousands of people coming individually to look at the site. Mr. Prime requested that the issue of traffic in the ski area be addressed. Mr. Krzys stated that it is felt that not much more traffic will be increased. Day-trippers will use the mountain the way they are using it now. People at the top will be skiing down. The lift lines will be controlled. There will be more snow making, improved chair lifts, improvement of the existing buildings and five more trails. Mr. Roberts felt that the Luzerne Road entrance was being de-empha- sized and perhaps incorrectly. 'Mr. Krzys said that a lot had been learned from the market studies in regard to the road system. The DEIS covers this issue. Mr. Brandt said, as we learned this and saw the significance of the traffic at the top of the mountain, the developers committed to building the road. This entails many millions of dollars of up-front costs and this has been addressed - - where the money is coming from, how it is going to be done and how it is going to be financed. It is a very major committment on the developers' part, to say up front that the road is going all the way through. Mr. Roberts said that it does give the site the second entrance, about which the Board had complained. Mr. Brandt also said that· the topic of ski lift's ability to take people to the top of the mountain for a special event is not a minor thing and could get into the way ski lifts are designed. Quite a bit of parking could be put at the bottom send people up via ski lift. It must be a vehicle which operates quite rapidly. It costs quite a bit. 6 ¡; XI.J¡8IT Jf)