Loading...
1989-04-25 ".ç'~ "- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD APRIL 25, 1989 INDEX APPLICANT PAGE Site Plan No. 20-89 King Fuels 1. Site Plan No. 12-89 Curtis Lumber 3. Subdivision No. 9-1988 Kenneth Ermiger 5. Subdivision No. 7-1989 Farm to Market Commons 5. John and Stephanie Mason Subdivision No. 8-1989 Marilyn J. VanDyke 7. Site Plan No. 29-89 Worlco Management Services 8. Subdivision No. 9-1989 Cline Meadow Development 10. Site Plan No. 30-89 Dr. Shimon and MaIka Shalit 12. Site Plan No. 31-1989 Walter Dombek 19. Site Plan No. 23-89 Wesley Veysey 20. ,. " 1 --- ..../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING REGULAR MEETING APRIL 25, 1989 7:35 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD ROBERTS, CHAIRMAN HILDA MANN, SECRET AR Y VICTOR MACRI JOSEPH DYBASS PETER CARTIER KEITH JABLONSKI JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER P AT COLLARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK PROJECT ENGINEER-WAYNE GANNETT MEMBERS ABSENT FRANK DESANTIS OLD BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 20-89, TYPE n, HC-lA, KING FUELS SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF QUAKER ROAD AND DIX A VENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MOTOR VEIDCLE FUELS SALES FACILITY WITH A RETAIL CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. nO-I-20 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: L5 ACRES PAUL PRIMEAU ARCHITECT REPRESENTING KING FUELS/DENNIS O'MALLEY GREINER INC., SENIOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER PLANS SHOWN TO BOARD RICHARD ROBERTS-This was tabled from a previous meeting primarily for additional information on traffic, drainage, and percolation tests. PAUL PRIMEAU-Plans shown to Board reflect the design of the pert test. Two items that should be addressed as a result of the last meeting, they are the design of the septic system, storm water map review and landscaping. We have been back to the Beautification Committee they have given us approval. Their is also a question regarding traffic. Regarding the first, item we have taken a percolation test at the site. New York State Department of Health, and Department of Environmental Conservation, and Mr. Martin, of the Town are in receipt of this design. I have spoken verbally with Mr. Nace, and he didn't give me any negative comments. We have submitted a storm water management plan and Mr. Nace, has asked for some clarification of the map to Rist Frost. These are the main points besides traffic. Mr. Dennis O'Malley, has conducted a traffic study at the site. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-Referred to engineer report, asked if anyone has checked the permeability percentage? PAUL PRIMEAU-Yes, it is 38 per cent. WA YNE GANNETT-We can check this. There is no statement of acreage shown on their plan as to how much property will be donated to the County for future right-of-ways. We didn't have a number that we could check. If this is donated in the future the developer should make sure that the cover is still adequate. PAUL PRIMEAU-As the design exists presently we have satisfied the permeability area, asked if Wayne Gannett agreed on this? WAYNE GANNETT-Yes. PAUL PRIMEAU-The County plans to develop the road are mainly on the percolation at which _r-' 2 time the plan that we have looked at was submitted to us, we have enough area. That plan may change in the future. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if the present plan was submitted by the County? PAUL PRIMEAU-Their is a conceptual plan at this point which was given to them. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if the permeability can still be meet? PAUL PRIMEAU-Yes. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See Attached. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked Wayne Gannett, if a couple of more things should be added to the map? WAYNE GANNETT-Correct. Minor points would be passing on Quaker Road, and information noted the percolation rates per fill in this area since this is part of the design. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See Attached. Warren County Planning Board, Approved, See Attached. PAUL PRIMEAU-We did attempt to go back to the Warren County Planning after we had the traffic study done, they wouldn't look at it. DENNIS O'MALLEY-In receipt of letter dated, March 27, 1989, to Mr. James E. Pollack, Director of Development, from Dennis O'Malley, Senior Transportation Engineer, letter to Mr. Richard Roberts, dated, March 30, 1989, from Greiner, Inc., (See attached, Referred to letter). We have a project that essentially does not generate a lot of traffic in itself. Most of the data we have for these projects indicate that about 60% of traffic related from this kind of project comes from pass by traffic. Had concerns with what the impacts on sites geometry and the proposed geometry that was suggested by Warren County in their Quaker Road Improvements Project and the projected volumes that we have been talking about in the past. The heavy volumes of traffic would be coming from Quaker Road, Dix A venue, and it continues down towards Hiland, and the Boulevard, and Warren Street. The concern I had was with what was projected for the year 2008. The critical factor was the projected left turning volume for Quaker Road in the year 2008. Fred Austin, is doing some reconstruction of Quaker Road, to provide another thru lane in both directions. This volume requires a dual left turn lane. We're not saying that thegeometry may be adopted by the County, they don't have it in their current plans, the concern was if it was adopted do they have enough room to do it. To put in a dual left turn lane you need two things first; (1) you have to have two lanes to accept the dual left turns and carry them some distance before you bring them back to one lane; (2) you have to have two lanes opposing that left turn lane. I talked to the client and told him of this concern, and I thought it was important in our previous discussions one of the critical issue of the Town was preserving right-of-ways in case you needed to make improvements. I suggested this was the geometry necessary and in doing so we restricted the site somewhat because we had to take some of the County land and some of the owners land in order to make this geometry work. The owner is aware of that he knows some land may have be taken in order to preserve that right-of-way and he has accepted that. The other issue is the circulation going in and out of these driveways in relation to people waiting at the intersection. How long do the lanes have to be in order to accommodate a design, in this case you would need 100 feet to accommodate that volume. The other concern is cut through traffic, it is projected that very few people are going to do this because of the geometry of this area. We have been focusing on the Town or County we're going to pursue this project for improvements that would require the basis for the required geometry there is enough room for you do do this. PAUL PRIMEAU-Dennis brought this design to us and indicated the potential for this additional lane one the things that we did is reflected on the plan is to bring the grass islands in closer and to lengthen the entrances and the exists. These modifications are reflected in this plan. DENNIS O'MALLEY-All of the designs for the driveways meet the standard D.O.T. designs for driveways. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if Wayne Gannett looked at the revised site plan? WAYNE GANNETT-Yes, we looked at the site plan and traffic study and it appears to be reasonable. We looked at the site plan for all of the issues that were in the previous letter. The key issue -~' 3 was the septic system. VICTOR MACRI-They have changed the dimension, the change that we have to be concerned with now is the distance between the kias and the island, you had 30 feet before now you have 20 feet. PAUL PRIMEAU-I believe it is 22 feet that is enough for two lanes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED VICTOR MACRI-Asked John if their was any pending action with the Building Department? JOHN GORALSKI-The question that came up was that King Fuels strip the topsoil off the site and began bringing fill in. Under our Zoning Ordinance their is nothing that prohibits this. Site plan review prohibits them from doing any construction prior to getting approval. PAUL PRIMEAU-The Board is in receipt of a letter from Mr. Pollack. (on file) Prior to any action Mr. Pollack, spoke with Whitney Russell, indicating to him what was planned on the site. This was not in absence to any communication with the Town. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-89, TYPE IT, KING FUELS, Introduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joesph Dybass: To approve since they have complied with our request and we have a traffic study concerning operations in that area to the build out in the year 2008. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 12-89 CURTIS LUMBER, TYPE IT, LI-lA, ROBERT K. CURTIS HOLDEN AVENUE, 800:t FT. NORTH FROM LUZERNE ROAD, FOR A LUMBER YARD; AT PRESENT IT IS A VACANT RESIDENCE AND WOODED LOT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 117-9-12,22,29.2 SECTION 4.020 N LOT SIZE 1.75 ACRES MARK BOMBARD D.L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING CURTIS LUMBER/MR. GRIFFIN CURTIS LUMBER RICHARD ROBERTS-Tabled at previous meeting for more information. MARK BOMBARD-We have made the changes that we talked about at the previous meeting. We have created each site to receive both parcels on each side of Holden A venue. We have made some changes that the Town Engineer requested. We talked to the Town Highway Department, about the turn around access off of Peld A venue, we have made the changes. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See Attached. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See Attached, Warren County Planning modified with conditions, see attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if Board agreed to the changes in the Warren County letter and did the applicant agree to these changes? MARK BOMBARD-We don't have a problem with any of them except the outside storage. This was approved as a lumber yard in itself and they would like to keep some outside storage at least temporarily on the site. We will create the parking when we remove one shed sometime in the future. .. ~ 4 MR GRIFFIN-We have a storage barn over here, (refers to map) with the related items that would have to be stored over here (refers to map) rather then sending people across the road for a related item. Until we get this property developed we cannot remove this shed. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if this is what the County was asking us for to give the proper number of parking spaces? MR. GRIFFIN-We would have enough parking, 15 to 20 cars. RICHARD ROBERTS-There has been a parking problem and now we have an opportunity to address it. MR. GRIFFIN-Yes, this is what we intend to do. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if he was modifying the County recommendation just slightly? KEITH JABLOSNKI-What we asked for the last time was the site that would show the potential build out and to show the parking that was proposed and I don't see this. VICTOR MACRI-We need a plan of how your going to move traffic, tractor trailers, how your going to modify the site. MARK BOMBARD-I didn't realize that you wanted us to change this whole development. KEITH JABLONSKI-We want to make sure it works. You have to prove to us that you are going to tear down the shed, that you are going to put parking in here, that you are going to move traffic from site to site, your asking for us to agree to something that I don't see how your going to do it. MR. GRIFFIN-Didn't think the other site was going to be considered in this plan. HILDA MANN-They go together. VICTOR MACRI-We are talking about one operation here. We are talking about one site plan, we want to see the whole plan. We want to see where everyone parks, whether or not there are problems traveling from one site to the other. We're interested in the public safety, we're interested in the neighborhood character, the noise that may be created by the operation, besides the fact you that have increased the size of the building. What has happened here they have created more building on this land than was originally proposed as two principal buildings. MARK BOMBARD-We have created one building or twice the land. This still meets the maximum amount of plan. VICTOR MACRI-Concerned with the size of the trucks that go on through there and the location of whether or not it should be moved to one side of the road or the other road. There is II feet of distance between each side. MARK BOMBARD-The reason the shed has to be in the center is because there is a 30 foot setback for all buildings. When you put the 30 foot setback in the 80 foot spot it determines where the checkout shed has to be without going in for a variance. Unless we move the shed back far enough to allow for the semi's and large trucks. . . VICTOR MACRI-Asked how far this was from the street line? MARK BOMBARD-IOO feet from the street to the end of the road. JOHN GORALSKI-The concern that Warren County had was that they didn't feel that storing lumber on the site that they couldn't accommodate the parking. PETER CARTIER-This is what you will need to come back with. You need a plan for parking, traffic, two items in the letter from Rist Frost, regarding drainage counts and perc tests that need to be addressed. JOHN GORALSKI-What you are asking him to add is parking spaces, something indicating the flow of traffic through the site one way, and any possible elimination of buildings and additions of buildings. WAYNE GANNETT-There should be a percolation test documenting the design rate for the dry well and the drainage calculations should be modified. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 12-89, TYPE 0, CURTIS LUMBER, Introduced by Victor - - .......,,-' 5 Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Tabled for additional information regarding parking and traffic flow from the site and revised drawings indicating those agreed upon stipulations presented by the Warren County Planning Board and to address information in letter from Rist Frost. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SUBDMSION NO. 9-1988, FINAL STAGE, TYPE: UNLISTED, HC-lA, KENNETH ERMIGER ON WEST SIDE OF ROUTE 9, 800:t FT. SOUTH OF ROUND POND ROAD LOCATED BETWEEN AGWAY AND ANIMAL LAND PROPOSE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS TO SELL AND TO DEED TRIANGULAR PARCEL TO AGWAY TO REMEDY ENCROACHMENT. TAX MAP NO. 13-1-4,5 MARK BOMBARD D.L. DICKINSON ASSOCIATES/REPRESENTING KENNETH ERMIGER MARK BOMBARD-We added the 50 foot right-of-way as requested. We meet with the State D.O.T., they concurred on the placement of the right-of-way. The permit is with them. We noted on the plans that all accesses with access off this 50 foot right-of-way. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD HILDA MANN-Asked if this was the only road cut on this piece of property? MARK BOMBARD-They are suppose to use the main road cut. The site is all opened, we have created a new access down to Whitney Electronics. VICTOR MACRI-Once you create this new road cut their should be a drawing showing that the existing road cut would be closed. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See Attached. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDMSION NO. 9-1988, FINAL STAGE, KENNETH ERMIGER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybass: Approved on the basis that the revised subdivision map be submitted to the Planning Department showing that the front setback is 75 feet. Once the roadway is completed that the old access ways to the properties be eliminated and the access to those properties be granted in the new roadway Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis NEW BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1989, TYPE I UNLISTED, HC-lA, SKETCH PLAN FARM TO MARKET COMMONS JOHN A. AND STEPHANIE B. MASON SOUTHERLY BOUNDS OF PROPERTY ARE 200± FT. NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROUTE 149 AND BAY ROAD AND LIES BETWEEN THOSE ROADS APPLICANTS PROPOSE TO CREATE THREE LOTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO CONVEY THE FEE IN SAID LOTS TO INDIVIDUAL BUYERS. FOR PROPOSED COMMERCIAL/RETAIL USE; SPECIFIC NATURE OF PROPOSED BUSINESS IS UNKNOWN AT TillS TIME. TAX MAP NO. 27-1-40 LOT SIZE: 3.79 ACRES CHARLES NACY COULTER AND MCCORMACK/REPRESENTING JOHN A. AND STEPHANIE B. MASON '- ,- 6 ---./ SKETCH SHOWN TO BOARD CHUCK NACY-The slope of the land is generated in a south easterly direction. The drainage swale which currently exists through the side location of the property it is utilized to accept the drainage from the west to the east side of Bay Road and bring it through the property to. .. There is also a single pole line which then reverses through the property on the northwest southeast direction. In regard to the pole line the applicant's have contacted Niagara Mohawk and plans are to relocate the entire pole line to a position on Bay Road, it will be completely eliminated from the site. In regard to the existing drainage swale, we have talked to the Warren County Public of Works, their records show no use of this drainage swale, but they do indicate that it has been in use for many years. We have asked them if they have objections to relocating the ditch in a more southerly direction. They had no objections to this, each site would have to come in for individual site plan review. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See Attached. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if the separation distance could be corrected? CHUCK NACY-That is no problem. The actual absorption that is here is within inside of 12 feet. The new process by the Health Department, allows you maintain 150 foot separation from the lines to the dimensional absorption fields itself. RICHARD ROBERTS-Ask Wayne Gannett, if he felt comfortable with the storm water drainage? WAYNE GANNETT-At sketch plan the drainage is conceptual indicating the general concept. They have indicated the catch basins coming down the access road and draining to the eastern corner of the property where I persume some on site retention will be provided. We don't have a problem with the general concept of it. Some thought should be given to carrry as much run off as possible in the sheet flow before entering the catch basins. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if their are any problems with wetlands in there? JOHN MASON-Aware of none. CHUCK NACY-To our knowledge their are no jurisdiction to the wetlands. NOT A PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1989, SKETCH PLAN, FARM TO MARKET COMMONS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To approve provided that the concerns expressed by Mrs. Lee A. York in her letter and the items mentioned by Mr. Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, Rist Frost are addressed in the Preliminary Stage. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis DISCUSSION HELD VICTOR MACRI-Asked what this was going to be commercial or retail? JOHN MASON-I really don't know at this point. This has been designed towards retail which is the toughest use the most restricted use. VICTOR MACRI-The way you presented your application it is commercial development, maybe it should be retail development. The parking was created as retail, the application says it is commercial. Believe we have to look at this in the worst case scenario. "'- '-...- - - --/ 7 JOHN MASON-I have no problem with that. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1989, RR-3A, LC-IOA, TYPE: PRELIMINARY STAGE MARILYN J. VANDYKE WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DIVIDE HER PROPERTY INTO TWO PARCELS OF EQUAL AREA, CONVEY THE NORTHERLY PARCEL WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO HER DAUGHTER AND RETAIN AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE SOUTHERLY PARCEL. TAX MAP NO. 23-1-30 LOT SIZE: 19.5 ACRES CHARLES NACY COULTER & MCCORMACK REPRESENTING MARILYN J. VANDYKE CHUCK NACY-Propose plan for a two lot subdivision on the west side of Bay Road. Mrs. VanDyke owns just shy of 20 acres of land. The object of the subdivision is to divide the land equally and then convey a portion of it to her daughter and retain the other portion and construct a single family residence for herself. The portion to be conveyed is the northerly of the two with the existing house on it and the parcel to be retained is the southerly portion. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See Attached. CORRESPONDENCE Telephone conversation between John Batum and Susan Davidson. Mr. Batum, stated that he has no objections to Mrs. VanDyke's proposal. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-The area where your going to put the building the slopes are not that severe? CHUCK NACY-Correct. The slopes in that area are generally 10 per cent. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-1989,lntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: WHEREAS, there is presently before the planning Board an application for: Subdivision No. 8-1989, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, MARILYN J. VANDYKE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: Adirondack Park Agency 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. A full Envirinmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time. ., .~ -~ 8 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as my be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1989, PRELIMINARY STAGE, MARILYN J. VANDYKE,lntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Keith Jablonski: To approve with the following advisement. That in the application of the final stage that the propose contours around the proposed house and driveway be shown and that the perc test will be on file and the size of the proposed culvert at Bay Road should be indicated along with sufficient design information to show adequacy of culvert size, and that the wavier request be granted. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 29-89, TYPE n, MR-5 WORLCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. NW CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND WALKER LANE, FROM QUAKER ROAD, NORTH ON BAY ROAD, APPROX. I MILE TO WALKER LANE, PROPERTY IS AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION FOR ADDmONAL OFFICE SPACE (GENERAL AND PRIVATE) GENERAL: L88l SQ. FT., OTHER/RESTROOM &: COFFEE ROOM: 112 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) SECTION 4.020 F LOT SIZE; .771 ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR LAW FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING WORLCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES/LEO BOYLE PRESIDENT OF WORLCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES/ DA VID LINEHAN JIM GIRARD LANDSCAPING/ED EPIC MICHAEL O'CONNOR-What we're doing is adding to the existing office on Bay Road. The office has been there for two years. Worlco Management would like to expand it we're talking about an expansion to facilitate the present use. I put in the application information that its our belief that their will be only one additional job created due to the expansion. We have a survey for the site plan. We have submitted a proposal as to the addition. We are trying to minimize the disturbance of the extensive landscaping at the site with the additional required parking. The parking has a gravel surface as opposed to hard pavement. We have given you a actual count of the people who frequent the building, you will see that we are talking about perhaps a maximum over a 28 day period, with average traffic of 14 business people. The Ordinance does require additional parking we are required to provide for it, we have the space for it, we will provide for it. It seems that we may be over planning for some of the uses that we have in the areas of parking. We are not talking about changing the traffic flow we will use the same entrance to the site that is presently used. We are not talking about changing curb cuts. Aesthetically we are talking about building the same type building that is there, basically we are talking about an addition of 1600 square feet. The lot had about 33,000 square, roughly 3/4 of an acre, what we end up with is not much larger than that. The green area with the construction would still amount to 62 per cent of site. The setbacks are more than accurate, the front setback is a 30 foot setback, we are talking about a 70 foot setback, the rear yard calls for a 10 foot setback and we have a 85 foot setback. The sides call for 10 feet, we have 56 feet on one side, 20 feet on the other side. We did make a presentation to the Landscape Committee, they made one suggestion, that was that we create planting along the back to make the parking less noticeable, we are in agreement to that. DA VID LINEHAN-Designed present landscaping. I have continued the same theme that we originally started. I suggested that we might want to try arborvitate or cedar it would be a little netter than the white pines that are existing and provide a little better screen that "- --/ 9 was is there now. JOHN GORALSKI-It is not within an overlay zone. RICHARD ROBERTS-They should cut down the number of parking spaces from using more than we have. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I asked in the application if the Board would consider 15 spots. We have at present 8 employees were talking adding one employee making it 9. JOHN GORALSKI-They are not verifying the parking requirements or changing the site plans. They still have to provide that amount of parking they just don't have to pave it. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, John Goralski, Planner DISCUSSION HELD MICHAEL O'CONNOR-The site drains to Bay Road, what we have been using may be less than than what you want from a technical point of view we will continue that drainage plan. There is a culvert that goes across Bay Road. The drainage comes out to the front of the road now. All we are going to do is move the drain over into the ditch and move it back over and have it slope more of the same way. ED EPIC-The drainage swale, we plan on moving it to the north to indicate what is there now. It is a gradual slope drainage in the front which is the County drainage basin it is shown on the survey map. At this location there is a culvert that runs under the road and it drains along there, and drains into the basins which is here (refers to map). We would be happy to provide you with calculations to show that the site is capable of retaining whatever is proposed on site. VICTOR MACRI-The existing grades should be shown on one map for site plan. This is the way it should be presented. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannet, Project Engineer, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if the applicants had any problems with the engineer report? MICHAEL O'CONNOR-No. The easement does not prohibit our use of it. We use it as a easement that allows the private developer to be aware of the line to that property and he has the obligation to restore our property if in fact he evers utilizes it. As to the capacity of the existing absorption field we did check with the Town, and we also check as to the capacity. ED EPIC-Their is a breakdown of the amount of water. Their records show documentation of 15 to 35 gallons a day per person is the estimated water usage of this occupancy. If you have 9 employees you have 315 gallons maximum per day of water usage. For health codes and local building requirements, the septic tank must be sized to go along these usages. In checking the proposed existing disposal system which was approved on Permit 8934, we have a 1,000 septic tank and it is 325 per cent greater than required, the leaching field was approved to handle the overflow from the septic tank. Other than this, I don't know what else can be done. It is in place and operating with no problems. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-It sounds like you want some documentation in addition to what were orally telling you. I suggest that we submit that to your consultants who have raised the issues. VICTOR MACRI-I am concerned with the septic system. I understand what your creating is a 4,000 square foot office building and conceivably at present the septic system that is designed I'm not sure that it can handle this new design. You also have to be aware that their may be a capacity problem with the design. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-You are talking about different standards for office occupancy and residential building. DICK MORSE-The design number that has been indicated for office occupancy are reasonable. VICTOR MACRI-Only for nine people, this is my concern? "- -.. - ,- -/ 10 DICK MORSE-Right. Our concern was not the septic tank but the capacities of the absorption field itself. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Doesn't know if their is a formula that goes by square footage per employee. Part of what we are creating is storage. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DA VID LINEHAN-For my own clarification does the Town really want retention in all cases? This particular site is low lined in the relationship to the surrounding developments. Most of the water will come down in a thunderstorm. In this particular case you do want to retain the water that is on the site or do you want to remove its natural course so in the case of a larger storm the water isn't accumulated at that one point? JOHN GORALSKI-The policy that we have followed is that the posted development storm water run off would be no greater than a brief development storm water run off. The idea is that whatever retention is necessary to keep the storm water run off the same. DA VID LINEHAN-The other question that I have is that in the formula whether you use the rational or the soil and water consultation formula for calculating this their is some composites which are standard. In this particular case the composite nature of the site is retained 68% rain space. How much calculation does the property owner have to go through to meet this requirement? WAYNE GANNETT-The calculations are not that extensive, but it is just sufficient to demonstrate that the general policy limiting the increase in run off is being followed with engineering standards. The policy has been of the Town is to limit the peak run off's in the after development conditions and that it should be no more than peak run off in the pre-development conditions which has been applied to subdivisions and site plans. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO.29-89, WORLCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES,lntroduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybass: Tabled for more information as mentioned in Staff Notes. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis L tSUBDMSION NO. 9-1989 TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-20, SKETCH PLAN CLINE MEADOW 1}9J DEVELOPMENT WEST OF MEADOWBROOK ROAD, NORTH OF CLINE DRIVE, EAST OF "Ar ~ EVERTS A VENUE TO SUBDIVIDE INTO 5 HALF ACRE LOTS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER ., "" OF PROPERTY AND TWO LARGER 6th AND 7th LOTS ENCOMPASSING 17 ACRES OF LAND IN AND OUT OF THE WETLANDS AREA TO SELL AS PRIVATE ESTATES. THE 5 HALF ACRE LOTS WILL BE SOLD FOR SINGLE F AMIL Y CONSTRUCTION SITES, 2 LOTS OF WHICH WILL BE PURCHASED BY THE APPLICANTS/SUBDIVIDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIDR PERSONAL RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 108-1-4.1 TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 7 LOT SIZE: 20 ACRES LEON STEVES VANDUSHEN AND STEVES REPRESENTING KERRY GIRARD LEON STEVES-There will be central water and sewer built on site. Perhaps something could be done on the undeveloped street for the improvement of the configuration of Lot 6 for ingress and egress. STAFF INPUT Notes on file, John Goralski, Planner, See Attached. DISCUSSION HELD JOHN GORALSKI-Lot 6 averages out to 12 feet on the property of Lot 5 the squeezing in of the Town Road. You could either redesign the property line between Lots 5 and 6, or extend the Town road 20 feet to get onto the property. ',- - ...-'" ....../ 11 RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if the undeveloped street is scheduled to go through? JOHN -GORALSKI-Not at this time. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if John was saying the frontage is awkward or illegal? JOHN GORALSKI-The access is legal it is just very tight and will be tough to get into. LEON STEVES-Lot 6 does have 300 feet of frontage. . .the access has to be on the road that it is fronting that is why the 40 feet is behind it. We will attempt to make the change that was suggested to alleviate that concern. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if the street was listed as undeveloped? LEON STEVES-Correct. We are exploring the potential deed of this ownership arrangement so we can make that accessible. RICHARD ROBERTS-Wondered if the Town would want to accept a cuI da sac just to serve one house? JOHN GORALSKI-Probably not. LEON STEVES-Part of the concern of the easement was that it would be filled by the Town. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if it may become a street one day? LEON STEVES-it may. RICHARD ROBERTS-We are waiting for D.E.C. on this. LEON STEVES -We have talked with them they have flaged the wetlands and located them on the map. They have had no objections to the proposal, surprised that they want Lead Agency Status. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if the flagging was done for just this development? LEON STEVES-Before the developer got into the project he asked D.E.C. to identify the wetlands. JOHN GORALSKI-The property line is north 65 degrees you could swing it up a little bit you may have a little more access out of the property and still have room for Lot 5. I don't think you have to extend the street except move that line. VICTOR MACRI-Asked if any discussion has been made about extending the water main instead of trying to tie the water line to Lot 6? LEON STEVES-We have a legal issue here, that should be resolved by the Town Attorney. On the sheet I believe the separation is shown. VICTOR MACRI-On the sheet you show a typical detail you don't know what is going to be the crossings on the road. Your don't really indicate that it is existing. . .in relationship to the way whether or not you propose those streets in there. LEON STEVES-That is the water and sewer line as they exist in the street. VICTOR MACRI-You have to prove that there is a proper separation before you can propose the house out there is to receive water. LEON STEVES-We have demonstrated the water lineto the house. VICTOR MACRI-Thinks that the Water Department should look at this. RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked if in the general area that access the driveway the whole spot, are we asking that it should be cleaned up before we can give conceptual approval? PETER CARTIER-Would like to see a wetlands boundary. ',- '-...-- - --' 12 LEON STEVES-Pointed out where the wetland boundary was, it is defined by D.E.C. VICTOR MACRI-The concept may be OK if all the problems are straightened out. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDMSION NO. 9-1989 SKETCH PLAN, CLINE MEADOWS DEVELOPMENTtIntroduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Tabled for further information. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 30-89, TYPE ll, HC-lA, DR. SHIMON SHALIT MALKA SHALIT ROUTE 9, NORTH OF WARREN COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER, OPPOSITE MONTCALM SOUTH RESTAURANT, NOW LAKE GEORGE PLAZA AND EXIT 20 MOTEL. FOR RETAIL STORES: 59,200 SQ. FT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 36-1-27.2,26 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: 5.3:t ACRES MICHAEL O'CONNOR LAW FIRM OF LITTLE AND O'CONNOR REPRESENTING DR. SHIMON SHALIT MALKA SHALIT/CONSULTANTS JOHN BLANCHARD AND NANCY O'HERN C.T. MALE DEffiGN SHOWN TO BOARDmKETCH SHOWN TO BOARD MICHAEL O'CONNOR-I have indicated what we have proposed it is a rejuvenation of two existing uses. One particular use or one particular site their is approval for 38,000 square feet of retail space. It was approved by the predecessor of this Board in May of 1986, and built shortly thereafter. On that site there are two buildings that were constructed they were later joined by an alcove partly because of snow problems that developed between the two buildings when they were built as independent free standing buildings. The site immediately to south is presently advertised as Tom's Exit 20 Motel. For the purpose of the record at the time of the filing of the application Mr. and Mrs. Shalit, were not the owners of that site they were contracties since the date of tìme they have become the owners of that property. Prior owners no longer have an interest in the property at the moment. That site is presently occupied by 97,080 square feet of buildings, part of which is used as a restaurant, part which is used as a motel. Their is a 40 seat restaurant there and 30 motel units, some of which are of very recent construction. We have been before various Board's in the past three or four years to obtain variance's for both the restaurant and the motel units as they were modernized. If you recall, that the restaurant building was the old gas station sometime ago, it was known as the Tom's Motel. We came in and got variance's to build an addition on that restaurant building because it was so close to the highway even under the old ordinances, we will show you on the map exactly how close it is, I think it is 28 feet. We also got variance's to build the motel units because they. . .to the boundary lines, the setback on those are probably only 2 feet. In addition to the motel buildings and the restaurant their are two managers apartments, one is a free standing cabin about 900 square feet, the other is a apartment in the lower part of the building and restaurant. I correct myself for the record, the restaurant is 23 feet from the road not 28 feet from the road. I would also call to the Board's attention the existing driveway which is on the south side of the property and the southside of the existing restaurant building is some 12 feet of width and is accessible by the open access across the whole 124 feet of the southerly part of the site. Their is very little curb restraint here, the driveway I believe is 12 feet wide, the building is 23 feet back, which is probably less than what we show in the green area. The proposal is going to present a product that we think is going to improve the site, improve the area, and improve the Town. I would love to demonstrate to you that traffic wise to the site we're going to have improved. We are going to improve as far as controlling the surface drainage on this property and the adjoining property (refers to design), that we aesthetically are going to present something that is going to be more pleasing than what is presently there. I like to begin perhaps the details of what we have with the presentation of Nancy O'Hern, and ask her to explain to the Board our demolition plans so that you understand exactly what we're talking about as far as removing what we presently have. NANCY O'HERN-The project that we have here before you has undergone a great deal of design. What I like to do is to talk to you about some of the factors that went into our design of this project. I might mention that this is the existing. . . two existing sites both have been built upon. Their are several constraints of the existing conditions that we've had to deal with which have greatly influenced the design that we have out there. First of all, the existing area adjancet "'- '- -. .-../ 13 to the site are some various land uses. To the south there is Mobil Oil Corporation, commercial use in a commercial zone, to the north is the Adirondack Factory Outlet, a commercial use also in a commercial zone. To the rear of the site on the easterly portion there are two undeveloped residential lots and to the south easterly portion there is a prior nonconforming commercial use within a commercial zone. The residential zones have dictated some additional setbacks of upper areas to the development and they have also placed under consideration as far as sighting the building and some other things. Existing setbacks, the northerly building of the retail outlet is setback at 80 feet. The southerly building is setback at 70 feet. The existing motel is 23 feet from the roadway. The site topography is verified and hard to work with on this site. If you take a average grade change in front to the rear we're talking approximately 23 feet in elevational change. From the north to the south were talking an average 15 foot drop it varies in some places it is much less in some places than it is more. These are some of the constraints that we've had to deal with. What we are proposing being that their are some viable businesses here that are currently in operation, they are owned by the owner, the developer of the project, lets make use of some of these existing structures as opposed to coming in with a completely new project. There is no . . .structures on the new and it would make sense to make some use for what is there. We propose to retain the northerly building of the plaza. We propose to remove the motel and the restaurant, all these out buildings, the pool etc. The southerly building of the retail plaza which is of good construction we are going to propose to move, it can be relocated, placed on a new foundation, and utilized into the new development of the site. This existing building is in a 80 foot setback, the southerly one is at a 70 foot setback from the road. The requirement is 50 feet, what we are proposing is to match the 80 foot setback of the northerly building. In order to minimize any impact that one structure will have on the site as opposed to right now your looking at somewhat of a cohesive structure to the north, and the numerous out buildings to the south. We are proposing to have one unified structure, however, recognizing that this needs to be visually broken up that it could have a fairly good impact upon the highway. What we have proposed is in order to minimize the appearance with the existing northerly building the location of the existing southerly building is to join them and created a U shape into which the center we can place parking, pedestrian access as well. We have proposed considerable planting out along Route 9 within that green area. What we hope to do is minimize the impact of the project on Route 9, and provide an attractive retail space for the clientele that will be coming there. Sketch shown to Board. What the Board is looking at is a cross section showing the existing and the proposed topography for the site. The section has been taken through the mill of the site approximately, were looking at the new structure placed at the bottom the U has been cut through. The front portion is the existing northerly building, were looking at it from south to north, sort of a elevation section so to speak. This would be a adjoining parcel between the two. Currently, this is an area that would have to be filled, that area has been taken up by what is now currently the rear parking lot. The other existing retail buildings set out further the grade drops down along the side of it. What we are doing is coming out pretty close to existing setback for the rear of the property there is some fill that is going to have to incur in that inter U shape parking area, but will be hard to minimize the fill by keeping the addition from going to far back. It is hard to keep it somewhat close to the front of the site in order to minimize any fill that would have to be brought in. As you can see it talks about parking under neath the building. Currently, there are somewhat steep driveways along the sides of the stores, we are proposing to change those to a 5 per cent grade now it would be much more gradual, much easier to drive down being that we maintain the same grade over along a distance. Parking would occur underneath the existing retail stores. We propose to keep them all at the same elevation, for handicap accessibility is a strong factor here. It is just that the building requirements are more problematic for handicap accessibility. Handicap parking has been proposed for the front area of the site and conforms to regulations and they would all be accessing the site from the front. In addition we have the residential zone, its been our choice to situated the building approximately in the middle of the site as far as the rear addition because of any potential impacts to the residential zone behind us currently it is not developedit is vacant, however, that has been a concerned all along. We do have the additional buffer areas, we are proposing fencing surrounding the site in anticipation of a residential zones and potential development. Parking in many cases for retail, it is desirable to have all the parking in one area, for plowing, for access. we can come in see what's there and go right up to the stores. In order to work with the site we have proposed; (1) to split the parking areas. The traffic that is generated by the type of retail that is in this outlet is somewhat less than standard retail. We have plans, however, for the full amount of parking required and we do approve of that. There is parking out front for 100 cars, what we've tried to do is break that up with green space, islands, to provide a good pace of circulation, people not racing through a massive parking area, in order to break it up so when your driving along Route 9 your not looking at the cars. There will be parking underneath the rear portion of the site, it would be fully covered, basically a cover parking facility, it is not a parking garage. It will be opened sides and open walls, it will be covered and offered some protection for employees or people to drive down access ways and park. To the rear it is a gravel parking area, it is anticipated that the parking for this will be used primarily in the summer months when you have got your peak access for the stores. The gravel will not be a problem in the winter time nor difficult to plow we anticipate that this will be used during the summer peak shopping retail. Mike, mentioned that we do have two existing access points (points out to Board), on the site for the existing plaza. Their is a 125 feet of space '---- ~4 ,-.-0" -/ ',,- in front of the diner and motel. What we've proposed is two access points, access will be directed in, directed out, they are both two-way access. (Tape Turned) Loading operations could occur in loading areas and traffic would be allowed to drive by in both areas. Should there be a problem in the one driving lane on the southerly side emergency vehicles would still have a secondary means of egress to the site, its down a one-way drive, I never known that to stop a fire engine, in the rear of the site. What we tried to do is to keep the traffic flow directed to come in and go out. You can come in along the road there is quite a bit of parking provided adjancet to the stores and in the front area of the site. As I mentioned before, emergency situations, we have a truck pulling in the loading area the average UPS van which is what the site is serviced by takes approximately a It minutes to do a simple backing maneuver into that loading zone. We have cars entering the site, I think about one every 40 seconds during the peak hour from the traffic generation and about the 1 t minutes that it takes him to unload or to back into that space you could have maybe two cars lined up adjancet to that building. We have stacking space for six cars so I feel that we have taken care of loading and potential other conflicts within those traveled areas. As far as the planting on the site, we would like to create something that is an asset to Route 9. We have done considerable planting out along Route 9, green areas in by the stores I would like to use that; (1) to minimize any impacts of the building, (2) to create a nice entrance into a high quality development. I think that these are all the points that I have to talk to you about as far as the development. JOHN BLANCHARD-Would like to briefly discuss our utility concept with Lake George Plaza. I like to begin with storm water, our storm water management concept. We had two primary objections when we looked at the site; (1) is to continue to advance the drainage that enters the site from the out lying properties, (2) also to the extent if possible to mitigate the effect of development of this site on down through the property. Anyway you grade it to the south of this presently they are experiencing migration during frequent rainfalls. What we have tried to do is to the extent is to capture all the drainage that is generated off site, all the drainage that is generated on site, and to drop into the retention facility in the southeast corner of the site. All an overview of drainage that comes onto the site. To the north of the project which consists primarily of commercial properties and some undeveloped residential areas comprise a 70 acre watershed. We computed the historic drainage that enters the site for a 10 year storm and computed that to be 7.4 CFS. For the purposes of comparison and for the sizing of the detention volume down here we assume that the existing site is undeveloped, under the same 10 year conditions we established that discharge to be 1.8 CFS, with the total discharge to both was 9.2 CFS. Our propose plan accounts for the reflection of any drainage that enters the site for a surge of storm sewers to collect surface drainage, and another drainage system to collect surface drainage that may seek and be collected by a retaining wall along the property line any drainage that should enter the site under heavy rainfall from Route 9, would be collected by network and would be routed again to the detention lines.. . All drainage that is generated on the site itself including the building that shows the roof drainage is also collected by this system. The only portion of this site that is not collected by this storm network is the area where we had the gravel parking lot in the rear where we have the seepage pits. This drainage is collected by a swale that goes along the rear lot line as well. Under developed conditions we've established this detention pond and it has retention capabilities for 1.5 feet of depth. We modeled this system and have determined the number of . . . which would be discharges through a 8 inch pipe that would be set up again 1 t feet up above the bottom of the pond it would be discharges 4 CFS to the properties. In effect we've reduced the drainage that has entered the site historically from the neighboring properties and have eliminated the developed drainage that exits the site from our site whether undeveloped conditions. For lesser storms it should be pointed that most of the drainage should be contained within the detention pond, it should percolate, there are very few soils on the site most of that should be contained in that. We feel that we have dramatically improved the surface drainage system that exists on the pond property. With respect to sanitary sewage. Our sewage disposal system consists of installation of seepage pits, that's the system for the sanitary disposal that is presently in place on the site. We are proposing for all the existing facilities to be reviewed and a new clustering of seepage pits to be installed. We broken the building down into. . .zone, the first zone refers to the installation of 12, 8 x 8 seepage pits, the second calls for the installation of 6, 8 x 12 seepage pits. We have received preliminary comments from the reviewing engineer and they had correctly pointed out that on previous submittial's to the County we have called for a larger than required septic tanks. During the course of an additional review we had caught that in house before submitting a speedes permit and that request for a modification has already been included in our plan. As Nancy, has indicated, the rear parking lot is to be gravel and we will be pursuing a variance from the Town as well, for construction of these seepage pits under a parking area. With respect to water, there is an existing 1 t inch service line that services the northerly building which will remain in place and be interconnected with the proposed building expansion. An existing I inch service line that enters the southerly building will be removed and will not be used as a part of that concept. We are proposing an additional 1 t inch water service for adequate service. Before we build the sprinkler we are proposing for a 6 inch tap off the main on Route 9, that will provide two 4 inch water lines to the site. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Two points that were just made when you talk about utilities that mainly remain indirectly if not directly is they also contribute to the location of the building on the '- - .-"-'15 site. Obviously, your not going to have your septic or your detention areas in the lower part of the site you will become involved with a lot of mechanical movement of the grade that has been disposed of and that's why we have the retention in our areas for the septic and also for the detention areas. When we look at the site as I spoke of initially their is good combination of mixtures of uses as to what is there presently as opposed to what we are going to propose. We had Dick Morse, look at that and I call upon him right now, as to what traffic generation you might look to because of the change from the present uses to the existing uses. DICK MORSE-What we have done is that this site is unusual in that there are existing facilities and existing uses on this site. In our analysis of the traffic for the site we evaluated the existing potential of those facilities at their current build out, not what has been permitted, but what is permitted. This report has been submitted. The existing proposal generation is entering 100 units this is during the peak hour and exiting a 115 units. The proposed development as you've seen this evening is a re-use of that facility and the entering unit would be 94 during the peak hour, exiting a 127, that's a net gain of 6 movements to carry existing to proposed under the same criteria. We feel that this is insufficient in the support of building that road with these numbers that we're looking at. The other area that we did look at was the entering and exit points, again as previously stated those have been reduced from 4 to 2, and the site distances are more than adequate. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-That's pretty much, I think, what we will talk about in the general terms, we can talk also if we want to as to the type tenant we intend to have there that may reflect upon some of your thoughts, although I understand your comments that we have to look at the building and not necessarily the proposed occupancy. Basically we are talking about up scale merchandise and we don't really anticipate that we will generate the type traffic that that we could anticipate under your regulations. The general plans, the square footage, and number of cars per square foot. We have some experience with this type of leasing and we find occupancy demands this type parking that we are talking about. Your talking about 5.5 per thousand feet and we're no where near that. The type of tenancy that we look for is up scale type tenancy. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See attached. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from the Glens Falls Independent Living Center, Attached DISCUSSION HELD HILDA MANN-Asked, John Goralski, how far the Basketville building would be setting back? JOHN GORALSKI-Didn't know. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Believes they park against the building and they also park against the street. One big difference between that building and this building is the appearance of the height that your going to have at the street level. Also the fact of the view with the greenery and even some limited parking there. Our structure for example, if you take a look at Doyle's, on the corner of Quaker and Bay Road, they by chance of whatever have a miniature of this to some degree. If you look from Bay Road in they have the same offset for whatever reason. They meet Quaker Road at an angle at that particular point there to. Along times that their are examples of different buildings that maybe called to your attention to see if your looking at a wall that is 330 feet long, or your looking at two separate buildings with an alcove in the middle. I think that is the closet I can come to it. HILDA MANN-What we are looking at there is what is the depth from Route 9, to the center of that courtyard, 250 feet of that center part, that is at least 250 feet from the street. What is the length of each one of those end buildings there? MICHAEL O'CONNOR-95 feet. HILDA MANN-Your looking at two 95 feet pieces and the other part is basically 200 feet from the road. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-The south side of the building is pretty well protected by the molding spaces. I point out that we already have that building there in existence. (refers to map) We have an attrium connecting the two. HILDA MANN-Plus you have that another whole project. . . MICHAEL O'CONNOR-The other project is 23 feet away from the road as opposed to 80 feet .~ .- --.../ 16 away from the road. JAMES HUNT-Would like to address the scale and the design of the building. What sets the scale of this project is the fact that we have two existing buildings which we are trying to reuse for the site. What you will see on the street is actually what you see on the street now but we're actually doing some things to diminish the impact of those buildings. In terms of height these are very low rise buildings they are only about 10 feet. . .very low pitch roofs. Again, compared to the project across the street which is very high pitched they appear to be 2 t stories buildings. On this building, (refers to map), we will eventually be removing the entire walkway in the front so what we are going to do is to simplify these elevations that are on the street and make them scaled downed and then most of the store is actually in the back. The whole project is going to maintain the same roof lines the same low rise building to keep that through the whole site. From a visual point of view the scaled building with the existing size of the building in mind with the landscaping wherever possible provided to soften the effect of the building and the size of the building particularly down the center, the trees will provide a fair amount of screening and will appear to be two separate buildings. We offer this as not a final design but a sketch to scale of what kind of effect the building will have. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-The distance that was stated as being in error we thought that with the time limit we were not going to go back and change that. What happened is that we had it surveyed of adjoining residential and picked up the 376 of the wrong side. It scales out to be 186 plus 25 feet. As far as the width of our roadways go and access, we are showing 15 foot roadways and showing paved gutters on both the south and the end of the propose land. What we have thought is that between the two we ended up with 30 feet of access and we would be in compliance of having one being of more. . . to the other. If that is not satisfactory to the Board, we can move this access up here so that we can end up with a 20 foot access. Let me asked one question, we talk about green space, I don't see in the Ordinance any definition of green space. Their is permeability requirement. I think we have a misunderstanding because what we have it 30.8 of actual green space. We have an additional 24 feet of permeable parking. I don't know that if in the past the Board has considered gravel parking as being permeable or non-peremable. I understood that they have allowed that to be considered as part of the required permeable space. We do show that on our maps. VICTOR MACRI-Asked how many parking spaces as compared to the total number of parking spaces in the proposed permeable parking area? MICHAEL O'CONNOR-How many are permeable and how many are non-permeable? NANCY O'HERN-There are 100 spaces out in front that would be paved. There are 65 spaces in the parking structure. We have 290 spaces that is 125 parking spaces would be permeable. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Their is a showing on the application that the non-paved parking amounts to 24% of permeable, 19.6 gravel. We did define this on the application. The other comment I would make is that I think, John, is correct as to the width of the loading area, we will have to amend that portion. As present we show one area with a loading area of 10 feet, the other is 15 feet. We will have to amend the loading area on the south side by 2 feet to bring it in compliance. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See attached. DISCUSSION HELD HILDA MANN-Asked what was meant by comment #8 of the engineer report? MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Historically it is not much different than what is existing to the buildings up the road and we have really not experienced any problem. It is a lot better than what we presently have as far as the motel and restaurant operation. We really don't have a stocking space we have 23 feet between the pavement and the building. HILDA MANN-On the sewage treatment plan, comment #3? WAYNE GANNETT-Any future applicant would have to come back for the engineer to review any modification for any food preparation use. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-Would you modify this system to allow for a small kitchen? JIM BLANCHARD-You cannot accommodate that with this system. That would be a restriction on future site usage. The application rates for the seepage pits we based that upon D.E.C. and manufactured recommended radius one gallon per day per square footage of retail space. If in fact, any other type of waste were in place the. . . would be different in that case the .- --/-- 17 system that has been designed would not function properly. Since we are fairly tight with respect to placing the seepage facilities we have provided for 50% expansion which is recommended by the D.E.C. it is unlikely that we would be able to alter this and expand it given the site so their would have to be restriction on future use in that case. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-As to the variance for having the seepage pits under the parking area the variance would have to go to the Town Board, we have filed that application. WAYNE GANNETT-In the ideal situation it is always preferable to have seepage pit under the grass area, however, having it under a gravel parking lot it is not the worst situation in the world from a design standpoint, D.E.C. standards will allow that. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-This is presently what we had to some degree on the existing site is under asphalt. HILDA MANN-The access road is what we are concerned with. RICHARD ROBERTS-To give a little more safety going to the north and the south side traffic movement the logical thing to do is make the building a little smaller and the dimension. I suppose where you run into a problem there is with the parking in the U, you need just about the space that you have. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-To have anything decent to have some greenery in there that is about what you would need for that configuration. Also, this building is already set on foundation that is the distance between the existing. . . What we can do is pave part of it and have less of a green area there. This is something that is acceptable. PETER CARTIER-When you say pave one end of the parking. . . MICHAEL O'CONNOR-It doesn't seem to be a clear definition within the Ordinance where we have two separate drives there should be located in the same distance. Would you consider having one of 20 foot width and one of a little less. PETER CARTIER-You could have two separate access driveways back to the buffer. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-The Board is dictating that we submit one 20. . .we can do that. PETER CARTIER-You may want to consider the inter-parking system to be one-way. The detention pond. . . JOHN BLANCHARD-The detention pond itself is hard to tell off the utility plan the grading plan depicts it a little further. It is approximately 5 feet lower. PETER CARTIER-What I'm looking for is water depth. JOHN BLANCHARD-The water depth would be 2 feet deep for a 10 year storm, we would be well above that. As I indicated earlier this pond should be dry at most times. KEITH JABLONSKI-If we. . .into 4 lanes and end up getting the 5 feet to redesign this your going to lose your island. NANCY O'HERN-The island itself at the narrowest point is 10 or 12 feet, and it comes out to approximately 20 feet. Perhaps when the State D.O.T. does their review they may make some recommendations for this and submit it the Department of Transportation we hope they would make some recommendations on that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DA VID KENNEY-Owns the property to the north of this project. In favor of this project. TAPE ILLEGIBLE RICHARD ROBERTS-My first impression looking at this, it seems like a gross over use of the property. PETER CARTIER-When talking about UPS trucks, is that all that is going to come in there? No tractor trailer trucks whatsoever? DA VID KENNEY-I would say the apparel industry is UPS trucks. VICTOR MACRI-I would state for the record that their are tractor trailer. . . ''"- -...._,i,----" 18 JAMES HUNT-We feel comfortable in saying that our deliveries are by UPS trucks, we haven't had problems with them accommodating us. In any event if their were one there, their is a loading area right in the front that would accommodate a tractor trailer. NANCY O'HERN-The current loading areas are 15 feet in length. If we were to expand the length of them is would still be a easy tractor trailer maneuver to pull into and out of it if we were to expand the length of the area that they would pull into. There is plenty of turning radius for them when they do turn. If you would expand this to accommodate them, if that is a concern of yours we could do that. PETER CARTIER-How many loading areas do you have? NANCY O'HERN-We have two loading areas. PETER CARTIER-Consisting of two loading docks? NANCY O'HERN-It is not a loading dock it is a platform for the two foot back of the UPS truck. JAMES HUNT-Point of clarification of the south side. There is a 15 foot driveway and a 2 foot gutter, and according to drawing the two foot gutters had to be counted as part of the driveway. PETER CARTIER-Is the parking garage below the building is it paved or gravel? MICHAEL O'CONNOR-If you take the calculation as to permitted building on the site we're not building out we are building to the permitted zone. If we submit this as being a building with 59,200 square feet of most usable space, on behalf of the applicant I wouldn't ever foresee how the applicant can take a position that they can enclose that basement area. . . PAUL DUSEK-To actual give you an opinion on this I am going to have to take some time to read it over. RICHARD ROBERTS-It should probably be addressed in our approval. TAPE ILLEGIBLE PETER CARTIER-If the numbers are right you will need 290 more parking spaces this is what you are required. MICHAEL O'CONNOR-The paved area encompasses 100 spaces, and the paved area underneath the building is 65 spaces, you have 165 paved and the balance. . . NANCY O'HERN -What we have done, this is a site with existing building and parking. The amount of building that is existing and will remain is 19,000 square feet we have provided parking for that 19,000 existing retail space that we are keeping at the same ratio at which is was approved in 1986. Existing parking to remain is 69 spaces that is the amount that is required for the two existing retail buildings. Currently there was existing on the site parking for a 138 cars. We are keeping 60 of that under the Old Ordinance which was approved, and the remainder this additional propose new retail feet of 40,200 square feet has been calculated at the 5.5 per thousand. PETER CARTER-What was it before? NANCY O'HERN-I believe it was 3.6. PETER CARTIER-I have a problem with this. Why are we not applying the 5.5? NANCY O'HERN-Because we have a prior current existing use of the site. PAUL DUSEK-I think what they are trying to do is get a grandfathering of the parking established in relation to the building. The question that I have is that the site plan that you are referring to is that a site plan that deals with just the existing 69 parking spaces in that particular building or is it a site plan that deals with the entire structure and parking? NANCY O'HERN-It is a site plan for the original 48,000, 39,000 square foot of retail that was approved. There were a 138 parking spaces associated with that development. What we are proposing is not to keep that whole 138, but to take 69 of those cars and which relate to the existing retail buildings provide the parking for those two existing buildings as it was originally approved for them and then all the new area would go with the new parking regulations. "'"' -- - ----' 19 PAUL DUSEK-I don't know of any prOVISIOns of the Ordinance that would allow you to grandfather that. Will have to look into this on a couple of issues both in terms of the parking. PUBLIC HEARING TO REMAIN OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR-As I understand it you want to see a 20 foot driveways on both sides of building, you have suggested that we consider one-way traffic to the inter-area and U. A 12 foot wide loading zone your talking about a fence along the detention area. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 30-89, DR. SHIMON SHALIT,MALKA SHALIT,lntroduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joseph Dybass: Tabled for legal interpretation of the parking requirements along with other issues as mentioned. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis SITE PLAN NO. 31-1989, TYPE n, HC-lA, WALTER DOMBEK MEADOWBROOK ROAD, OFF QUAKER ROAD, 1,000 FT. FROM QUAKER INTERSECTION, ON LEFT (NORTH). TO CONSTRUCT 2 BUILDINGS, EACH 20 FT. BY 50 FT. (8 FT. IN HEIGHT) FOR BOAT STORAGE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NUMBER 59-2-13,14 SECTION 4.020 K LOT SIZE: L3 ACRES JOHN WENN REPRESENTING WALTER DOMBEK MAP SHOWN TO BOARD JOHN WENN-The application was made to construct two additional buildings for boat storage. This went before the Warren County Planning Board, and they disapproved this because of the residence next store, and another concern was the lighting. After appearing before the Warren County Planning Board, I spoke with Mr. Dombek, concerning the matter. The better way to deal with this would be to adjust the building so that it would be parallel to the existing office so that we would be able to maintain the 50 foot buffer on MeadowBrook Road. The office building on the south would have a 100 foot setback. What they are doing is by changing the building over we think that this could satisfy the Warren County Planning Board. In regard to the lighting their seems to be a great concern about this. If we move the boat storage the only entry to the building would be to the south. As far as the property to the north there would a south wall. In addition to the building that is there the lighting which is presently on the existing office would be somewhat off there. PETER CARTIER-Asked by turning the building what would the distance be between the existing office and the corner of the building? JOHN WENN-Thinks it would be 35 to 40 feet. TAPE ILLEGIBLE VICTOR MACRI-The Ordinance asks for a 50 foot buffer between a residential property and commercial property not zone. JOHN WENN-By redesigning the buildings and making them parallel, however, the 50 foot buffer would be maintained. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, See attached. CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Disapproved, See attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-The drainage swale on that portion of the property is suppose to be left intact, I see that it has been filled in the fence built and the drainage is all on the neighbor's property. This is not what our approval was. ENGINEER REPORT '''"-." -- ----20 Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See attached. DISCUSSION HELD JOHN WENN-Refers to engineer report. As far as the sewage the property will be hook up to the sewer system. VICTOR MACRI-Maybe as it exits. Is it as it exists was that what was approved previously, that is the question? JOHN WENN-The percentage is there. VICTOR MACRI-You have given a plat that is approved and I think you may have some boat violations and building problems. I think it is up to the Building Department to review this. HILDA MANN-We have a site plan that is presented to vary a site plan that is already on file with recommendations and that nothing on the original one has been carried out. JOSEPH DYBASS-It appears that we have a building code enforcement problem here to start with, doesn't think we should do any acting before that is resolved. RICHARD ROBERTS-We want that clarified plus we want to know that the application is complete to our drawings. JOHN WENN-Asked to have application withdrawn. MOTION TO WITHDRA WL SITE PLAN NO. 31-89, TYPE D, HC-lA, WALTER DOMBEK, BY REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT. SITE PLAN NO. 23-89 TYPE D, CR-15, WESLEY VEYSEY SOUTHEAST CORNER PARCEL AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOWER DIX AVENUE AND PARK AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 960 SQ. FT. GENERAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH ON-SlTE PARKING. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. ID-4-1 SECTION 4.020 1 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES KURT DYBASS. CUSHING, DYBASS ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT., P.C. AGENT FOR WESLEY VEYSEY KURT DYBASS-This is on the .1 acre site which a year ago we went to the Zoning Board and obtain a setback variance 55 feet in the front, 8 for the east, 18 for the west. This dictates the size of the building. STAFF INPUT Notes from John Goralski, Planner, See attached. CORRESPONDENCE Warren County Planning Approved, See attached. ENGINEER REPORT Wayne Gannett, Project Engineer, See attached. DISCUSSION HELD RICHARD ROBERTS-Asked Wayne Gannet, if approval could be made on contingent to the perc test? WAYNE GANNETT-Has no problem with this. There appears to plenty of room on the site for the septic system. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 23-89, APRIL 25, 1989, Introduced by Victor Macri who moved for its adoption, seconded by Hilda Mann: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board on application for: Site Plan Review No. 23-89, 960 square foot general office building, WESLEY VEYSEY, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, - "'-- ~·.~1 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved: 2. The following agencies are involved: None 3. The proposed action considered by y this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. A full Environmental Workshop was held on the project with the entire Environmental Assessment Form reviewed and a Negative Declaration was recommended at that time. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 6l7.ll of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Boards finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Dybass, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSENT:Mr. DeSantis PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-89, WESLEY VEYSEY,lntroduced by Hilda Mann who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: To approve with the recommendation of the perc test on the final plat. Duly adopted this 25th day of April, 1989, by the following vote: A YES: Mr. Macri, Mrs. Mann, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Jablonski, Mr. Roberts NOES: None ABSTAIN:Mr. Dybass ABSENT: Mr. DeSantis FURTHER BUSINESS AGENDA CONTROL PAUL DUSEK-Recommended to the Board that the Local Law was adopted by the Town Board tonight. The next step would be for this Board to give me the numbers of items that you want in the Rules and Regulations so I can present to the Board a Resolution on May 2nd, 1989, and set a Public Hearing for May 16th, 1989, following that public hearing you can adopt these Rules and Regulations. On motion the meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Richard Roberts, Chairman '-- ~UL D. PRIMEAU Arch ---. ..... ~ Averill Park. N. Y. 12018 (518) 674-2895 Eastern Union Turnpike P.O. Box 640 March 29, 1989 KING SERVICES INC.: RETAIL FUEL SALES FACILITY TOWN OF QUEENSBURY This report is prepared to determine the runoff quantities and management of stormwater at the proposed facility at the corner of Dix Ave. and Quaker Road. The proposed improvements include: regrading of the site, placing asphalt pavement, constructing a new building. This analysis was directed toward: 1. Determine the runoff prior to development. 2. Determine runoff after development to each of the culverts. 3. Determine overall runoff after development. The estimates of stormwater runoff are based on the rational method incorporating the following for a 25 year storm event: Q = CIA Q = A = C = I = peak runoff drainage area coefficient of runoff area average rainfall rate, from intensity, duration, frequency curves based on time of concentration From the attached computations, in which drainage areas include portions of the existing highways as well as the entire site, the flows can be estimated as follows: 1. The entire site runoff prior to development :::: 5.44 CFS 2. Runoff to culvert #1 :::: .69 CFS 3. Runoff to culvert #2 = 2.25 CFS + .69 CFS == 2.94 CFS .' '- '-- ...---' 4. Runoff to catch basin #1 = 2.52 CFS 5. Runoff to culvert #3 = 1.25 CFS + 2.94 CFS + 2.52 CFS = 6.71 CFS 6. Runoff to catch basin #2 = 3.06 CFS 7. Runoff to culvert #4 = 1. 92 CFS + 6. 71 CFS + 3.06 CFS = 11.69 CFS 8. Runoff from entire site after development = 8. 14 CFS The above analysis assumes for conservative design that all flows to the various culverts occur at the same time. The actual flows will be less since the peak runoff from the various areas will occur at different times. The flow from the entire site is provided for an estimate of the overall runoff. A significant amount of water may be diverted away from this drainage area after the new road improvements are completed. Pipe capacity for corrugated metal pipe flowing full slope at 2 % is estimated at: 12" dia. = 5.04 CFS 15" dia. = 9. 13 CFS 18" dia. = 14.85 CFS We have provided 15" diameter culverts for all of adjacent to the highways. the culverts Respectfully submitted, yJ~.L- Paul D. Primeau, R.A. 2 ¡ r , ---" -- '- '- Greiner Greiner, Inc. 2 Computer Drive, Albany, New York 12205-1607 1518) 459-1384 --_.._--_._~_. ---- -- -.._--~- .------ ~.- ,---._------- March 30. lr:¡89 fiLE COpy , / ~ì"'~ ,Y- , './ '\ - Mr. Hichard Robert::.:;, Chairmn.rl OueensDur'f Planninq Board TOwn of Queen~bury T~ìwn Ha 11 Bav Hoad Quecnsbury, N~w York i2801 Ee: A~plication for a proposed King Fuels Service Station at the cor-nero of Q'Jaker' Ro¿¡,J. and Dix l\vÐnue Dear Chairman Roberts: I have been t'equest.ed by the a.bove a.pplicant to provide a. review of the site plan for the above prniect and assess its potential traffic implications both in 1989 and in the desian yoar of 2000. In analyzinq the impacts of the project on Quaker Road and Dix Avenue. I have utili~~d information that has been derived for the Quaker Ridge Project and planninq efforts completed by Warren County. I have included a copy of my report to the client on I-his evaluation for. your' informal:ion. But beyond the report ilnd kn(,;wi nO' many of the concerns that t.he Plann i Oq Board has about growth alona Quaker Road and providing for the future. it may be beneficial to provide l.he Board with these additional thouO'hts. Fr'om wor'k complet.ed. by Warren County tor the projected traffic ~olumes at the irlLersection of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue maiar r¡!'omeh,-ic improvements beyond those sucrgested in the Quaker Ridqe Proiect may be necessary. More specifically. the County produced trattic volumcH for this intersection fnr the year 2008 which Incl uded a bui} duut of Hicrhland Park. a bui Idour. of Quaker Ridae and a buildout of the West Mountain Pro iect plu3 .'1.0 addi t iona1 3 pen~ent per year background qrowth compound.ed annually. If in fact these vol\œes materialize. there will be a need for a dual left turn lane from Quaker Road 30uthbound to Dix Avenue east- bound. The need fOl' this geometry creates additional design considerations ,,¡hich must be built into the highway system, Le. two lanes on Dix Avenue leavinq the irlLer-section and the width [Dr two left turn lanes for northbound Quaker Road. These projected volumes for 2008 can also be used to det~rmine the length of the storage lanes for each of the approaches to the tntersection. Based upon these numbers and the geometry required 1n 2008 to accommodate the traffic, the County will need to widen bolh Quaker Road and Dix Avenue beyond current plans. ¡ '- -- r- . ----- Greiner Mr. Richard Roberts PaCTe Two March 30. 1989 How does all of this affect the proposed pro,' : t and how does the proposed pr'oicct affect the r"oadway? 1r. we look at Lhe traditional process for evaluating land uses. we need to first ~unsidcr tri~ aeneration and distribution. Trip generation number"s for projects such as this with lhe 8 pumps sug(Jest that there will be apprnximatelv 35 ~ntering and exiting total trips during the afternoon peak hour. It has also been estimated throucrh driver 3urveys that as much as 80 percent of the vehicles '..Isinq the slation will be on the highway system befor"£' the staLion i3 built with 5A p€rcent being an accepted figure for true "Pass By" traffic. As you can see, the volume of traffic for· LhÜ; typE' of lcmd use 13 not the significant issue. In this case. the more important issues are ones of ingressl eqress relationships t.o the highway system and the ability of the site to Interme~h with futu~e highway needs. Ûn the inqressl eqres5 issues. the location and numbers of the driveways is an important element of access design. In this case. the owner has shown two entrance/exits on both Quaker Road and Dix Avenue. On Quaker Road the first is located approximately 240 feet south of the stop line for northbound traffic and the second is approxi- mately 410 feet south of t-he stop line. Acc€ss points to hiqhways such as Quaker Road become 3 c:oncern when they ei ther have the potential to obstruct the qeneral free flow on non site related tt:'affic or when site related traff ic presents an obstruc· tion in and of itself. In thi~ case. for example. if a vehicle exiting the first driveway were to be obstructed by vehicles 'N'aitinq for" the traffic light and:reate a 3ii.:.uaticn when: it starts to pullout and obstruct traffic üt- has :-estricted siaht distance, the driveway could be a safety pn:oblem. Likewise. if the driveway were to create a ::öituation wher's a left turning vehicle waiting to enter the driveway wen2 sitting in a travel lane and presented an obstruct ion. especially I¡Jhere speC'ds are above 30 MPH. the driveway could be a safety problem. In the case of the first driveway for the Kinq F'l:el site. the e:.3timated length of vehicles backed up northbound on Qu~,?r Road at the tr"affic signal in 2008 ba.sed upon the County pLu.ning estimates .i:¡ about 160 feet or' 80 fee t short of the dr i veway. Likewise. Lhe l~ngth of storage lane for the left turninq vehicles north- bound to westbound Dix Avenue plus its taper is sufficiently north of the driveway to allow a potential left turning vehicle entering the King Fuel site to sit in the median and not be blocked by traffic. , ·....... ~ . --",--- Greiner Mr. Richard Robe~ts, Chairman f'aqe Thr'ee ~1a r c h 3 0, 1 989 11. similar' sit.uation exisL; un Dix Avenue where the driveways are located approximately 220 feet east of the stop line and 350 feet t:ast of the s tup 1 ine r'espect i vel y. Whi Ie lef t turning vehic 1 es entering King Fuels have the choice of either of the two drive- ways with thE one closer to the stop line providing space in the median to store. At the far·ther dl:.-iveway. through vehicles can pass using the shoulder area. The roadway wi.dth n:quin:ments for the 2008 volumes require that at lea.st three of the approadws may need to have addi tional lanes. This additional width requires that the roadway be pushed farther to the east and south constricting the site circulation somewhat. It would a.lso require that thE"! owners provide Right Of Way to the County for necessary highway improvements. After careful review and planning for Lhe 2008 system, the site can operate and st.ill provide the necessary Right Of Way for the intersection operation. A copy of the needed geometry and site rclation~hips is included for your information. Based upon this analysis. I offer the following recommendation. ~ First. King Fuels design the improvements will not require the any of their site. site 50 that future highway relocation or modification of .,;,. Second, based upon the interaction of the driveways to the hiqhway .system .:.md the importance of the dr' j veways to internal circulation. that the four drivewaV5 shown be maintained and that they allow ingress and egress. ,I; King Fuels dona te. wher'e required. the Riqht Of Way re- quired to accommodate future highway improvements by the County. Tn summary. the King Fuel site allows Lhe Town and County to permit ~ use of the site which has minimal traffic impact and pruvides the necessary space to meet the future highway needs of the region. ¡ '- Greiner Greiner. Inc. 2 Computer Drive. Albany, New York 12205-1607 (518) 459-1384 -.-.r..-...--' -- ---~-~---~--_._-~------------ ..--.------------------- ----------. ---..--- -------.---. March 27. 1989 Mr. James E. Pollack Director of Development The King Service, Inc. Troy, New York 12180 RE: Transportation Report on the Proposed King Fuels Service Facility at the Corner of Quaker Road and Dix Ave. in the Town of Queensbury Dear Mr. Pollack: We have compared a preliminary review of the proposed site of the King Fuels Service Facility at the corner of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue in the Town of Queensbury and is just east of the City of Glens Falls. Quaker Road and Dix Avenue are both Warren County Roads and under the jurisdiction of the Warren County Highway Department. The Town of Queensbury and especially this portion of the Town is undergoing rapid development pressure and currently has the High- land Park Development providing significant traffic to the area and is currently going through the approval process for the Quaker Ridge project. These two projects along with other anti- cipated development is expected to add significant traffic volumes to both Quaker Road and Dix Avenue expand to provide the transportation services needed for the future. In response to these needs, Warren County has approved the con- struction of improvements along Quaker Road from Lafayette Street east and south to Warren Street over the next few years. The intersection of Quaker Road and Dix Avenue is included in these improvements. Existing traffic volumes indicate that approximately 1620 vehi- cles move through the intersection during the afternoon peak hour. Overall Level of Service computed as part of the Quaker Ridge project indicate that the overall Level of Service is currently (C) while Warren County's most recent computations have placed the overall Level of Service at (D). TRIP GENERATION Data from the 4th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual is limited on these types of service stations. The information contained in the report indicate that approximately 3.6 trips per pump is expected. More recent local evidence collected by ,. "- -- -- Greiner Mr. James E. Pollack Page Two March 27. 1989 Greiner indicates that the trip rate per pump (two hoses) is closer to 4.0 trips. Based upon this information and the proposed 8 pump stations. it is expected that approximately 32 peak hour trips (both entering and exiting) may result at this facility. The majority of trips related to these facilities are generally from traffic known as "Pass By" traffic and represents traffic already in the traffic stream that turns into the facility, gets gas and continues in the same direction that they entered. For these service station type facilities. the amount of "Pass By" traffic has been measured at values as great as 80 percent but the generally accepted figure for service stations is 58 percent. Even if all of the traffic related to the site was "new" traffic: the traffic would not have a significant impact on the operation of the intersection. F1JTURE OPERATION OF THE INTERSECTION Based upon number provided by the Warren County Department of Highways, the intersection is expected to need to move signifi- cantly higher volumes of traffic over the next 20 years. With the "buildout" of Highland Park and Quaker Ridge and a background growth factor of 3 percent per year, the Highway Department projects a 2008 PM peak hour traffic volume of over 3100 vehicles per hour. In order to accommodate this volume. Warren County has proposed major improvements along Quaker Road and many of the approaches of the intersecting streets. Based upon these future volumes. the existing geometry of 2 lanes eastbound and westbound along Dix Avenue will need to be widened to provide for separate left turning lanes and a combined through and right turn lane. For Quaker Road, the existing separate left turn lanes for southbound Quaker Road will need to be widened to provide for dual left turning lanes while the northbound single left turning lane can remain. The existing through and right turning lane will need to be expanded to provide an additional through lane in each direc- tion. , '- ~ ~ Greiner Mr. James E. Pollack Page Three March 27, 1989 SITE CIRCULATION The site proposes the construction of two access/egress driveways on each of Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. The volumes of traffic along these two highways and the site's proximity to the inter- section required a review of the driveways and site internal circulation. In order to accommodate the geometric improvements required by the County, pieces of the site's Right of Way will need to be donated to the County. Providing for the geometry discussed above, the sites driveways are altered in order to provide adequate room for the roadway. In addition, based upon projec- tions from Warren County, the length of the necessary storage lanes was computed. The overall site modifications are shown in the included Figure. For traffic entering the Service Station during the PM peak hour, all of the right turns are easy. Driveway radii meet NYSDOT design criteria. For left turns from Dix Avenue, the driver has two choices: enter at the eastern most driveway where vehicles wishing to pass can go around using the shoulder area or use the western driveway and site in the median created for the left turn slot along Dix Avenue at Quaker Road. For left turns from Quaker Road, the left turners have two median areas to use, one at. each driveway. Based upon anticipated 2008 traffic volumes, traffic travelling north on Quaker Road waiting to turn left at Dix Avenue will not block the northern driveway from the site. Sight distance at all of the driveways is adequate and the presence of Highland Avenue to the south eliminates the need for some of the movements that might otherwise be necessary. Traffic internal to the site has enough room to circulate with reasonable ease and not create a situation where vehicles waiting to get gasoline are expected to get stuck with the rear end of the vehicle on a travel way. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Based upon a comprehensive review of the site, projected 2008 traffic volumes and the geometric relationships of the site's driveways to the intersection, it is recommended that the total " '- '-' ---- Greiner Mr. James E. Pollack Page Four March 27. 1989 of 4 driveways be maintained for beneficial site circulation and that these driveways can effectively operate as entrances and exits without creating unnecessary disruption and safety concerns for the travellers along Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. I would again like to thank you for allowing Greiner to be of assistance in the evaluation of this proposed site. Sincerely, ?'i1vrtM ffI. 0 '~..-- Dennis M. O'Malley Sr. Transportation Engineer fl' ~,/ - \-- ,.-< C \ \ \ , '- '-' -_.~ '" f, ;;, -<:; r.. {$ ;~ E ~ -u r v' L It' " J!' r'" , ,,/ ..~ ,; \ , ,. ,~ . :, " ( ~ ~!'~J;í,':, .p,:: ,-,:, fa,~H'" ~': J . ~' . "-... ~ I~- .-. - FiLE l- , ~ -.-. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 April 24, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE YORK, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan Review 20-89 Application/Project Name: King Fuels Recently the Zoning News had an article on "How to Critically Evaluate a Traffic Study." I have attached it to my notes for your information in assessing the Greiner study submitted. We have requested information justifying the permits for road access from Warren County D.P.W. The concern was that the proposed changes to Quaker Road would make the access ways closest to the intersection unsafe. The modifications pro- posed for Quaker Road were not clearly identified on the sub- mitted map. We have not received anything from the County D.P.W. office. The Warren County Planning Board has approved the project with the condition that the two curb cuts closest to the light on Dix and Quaker be eliminated. In reviewing the report by the traffic engineer it was indicated that there will be approximately 35 entering and exiting total trips during a peak afternoon hour. It is indi- cated that this will probably not increase the volume of traffic significantly. Further on, the study does indicate there are safety considerations and that in 2080 the volumes of traffic will require additional lanes "constricting the site circulation somewhat." During the last meeting the representatives of the developer said that this layout was the best, from a marketing point of view. Perhaps the board would like to request an evaluation of other design alternatives for the site. When we had the work- shop meeting there was no information available on the Quaker Road project. Since traffic is a serious problem in the Town and the philosophy is to reduce road cuts you may want to assess the alternatives. LY/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 , ',,- '- .. cmploy.:¡.: per ~()(~. . I¡,;~( df :1,Jùr JÚ'ol, nll~ WIIU ¡J III¡,:dn Ih"I..III~ ullj..:c bUIIJ'm¡ru\c: ...~.CVJ ~4U'¡fl.: 1...:.:1 .mJ .!!l) 'nou:MLJI building o...·cr JOU,lAJO ~\Iuarc feet WHU]J r~~jULn: J rrauil,.: ::'\Ut:)' ..100 ¡JLtn. StamfJrd. C\.nnc,ticut. The "'IIY') LUnlnb ¡,;uJc f~'4ulrl·~ a (r..ltli~ )luJy ~pr¡,;piJ!'"cJ by a prlHc::'-"llJnal ¡,;ngJnct,;r, r..:gl.:)h.:n:J HI ¡h~ )I,JtC ofC.mnc~licul, wuh ~"'¡,I\;rli)c: illlrafti..: engu..ccrin~ ~hcn a new cJcvclopmc.:1It W,II provuJc HXJ or more: parbn& M;alh, ur wht:r~ (hI.: pruPÙ:lI.:U use is;1 l; s(-fnuJ rCslaUrJnr." Austin. The AusLÍn zoning ¡,;ooc rcqullcs rraflic sludics for new dc'o'('lopments tho:t gcnt.:ratt.: hCOlV) Irani..: along :Mc.:cts with II01lh.:J 1.:.Ip.u.:itu.:s. For cA."unp¡c, [rJtìi¡; studies ..Ill' rcq'.JÍrcJ alung commercial ur industrial anenals with pa\'cnlcm widths of oW f~r.:t ur 1I10:-C If thr.: propo~r.:d 1.1Ild u~c will gr.:nr.:fatc mure: than :!,()()O ..-r.:hldr.: :nps pc:r day. I(the: roaJway pa'icmcm width IS tx:tlhr.:r.:n"U and..w r~cl. a tranic )tuo)' IS rC4ulrr.:O for Jny I;'LIIJ usr.: that gcncratcs l.l)(JU \ dud!:: tripS ~r dJY ~ If the: pavemem 'Width is h.:ss th.tn 40 feet, a (r.,HiI.: study I:' rr.:4ùírc:d for allY I¡¡nd U;)C Iha! gcnc:ralC:s more than 650 ve:hide: trip:' per doi1Y" Olhr.:r lhrr.:sholJ!oo, b.t~eu tHl slm¡):tr critcria. arc: used for .mcnals. ,,;ûllc..:tors. J.nJ hx.:J.1 strcr.:1s lh..1 sene rC;)IJCnl¡aJ .tn.:J.S. lIuw Ie Crilic~lIy r..aluate a Trame Study In SlfCUtt,lt!S Iv ."I/~yÙllt Trul1i,· CJtI).tCJliOIl (ITE, 19.!:S7ì, Robert P. Jur;.1sin ~nd Peter M;,,¡ndh.: ciJlI for stand;,uJ rClj,uircmerus for traffic impaç( stJICmcnts. Thc)' argue that, 100 utlc:n. lonmg b'Jards. plannint~ commissions. anJ ..:ìtiLcns bclÙ:ve thallr..nk analyses reflect (fIe dewlopc='s ccunumt"; imc:rc:-its because: ,be: builder I.~ pi.i)lHg the: trat[¡..: ¡';OIl3U!t;,afH'=- h:e. Jura::..in ;,¡,nd ~tlmdle pro viae a li.s( uf Mqueslionable pra¡';lll..:~s" sûlT:t:tlßh:S u::..eJ by tho::..c pr~p.ar:lIg lr.a i~ ,.¡nJ.!y.ses, PlJlln..:r~ .shou!d rt:vlcw the following encckJisL A [rame study I1HIY nOI a~¡';I./.{.ttely r·.:11cl.:( a projelo:f::.. I{JIIi..: fnp..!!,;! If II · A.s::..c:::..)Cs only the: peak·huur IIlIpJ';b uf 1hl.: new Jc,,'dopl11ci!( rather [h:tll th..: ",:uJllul,.¡ti..c: 1111pOl..:t ofth..: new U::t4: anJ aU exisHng uses; · Uscs Jahal trahi~ counts for ""divining strc:e:(s IhOlt dtJ nut relkct .,;h.lOg..:::.. due 10 ncw ú..:\odopmcfH; · U~::.. [he minimum trip gcncr;.¡,tion ratc:s from Trip G~flerullan. r..ther rh<an thc .a'ieragc r;,atcs; · U.sc::" "c.stimatcJ" trip generation (Ode) b.,:,cd on Ihe ..:nn~;ul(ant's "professio:1ai judgement" rather than using ùocument~d stuJies; · ^s~ltmcs ~·ignilic:Hit rCULlctions in trip generation r.ates (...¡tfFILlt ¡j.1...U/iwlII,¡tivnJ t.lo1:,CJ un :Inli...ipalcd PJrth:lpaLlvll in (idr.:,)¡¡;,arin): rr,)gr,un...; · A;¡:\UlTh.:S sigrulÍl.:JlIl (fit> n:dueiion.'i for mix.cd-usc ¡J.~\ doprn.:nb o~sc:J au ahUnljHIOIIS abnut cIHlìuincd \\lor~,'~!l(¡p;¡jn r!: \)r work.-¡cf !;"í1;tinmt:ntlnp~ tll [h"::\l: J~"'r.:!I)põ11emS; · l~norc.:ì Ih:.: imp;¡i.:t cf fu(ufI.: J,¡:vefopmer., on the adequacy or" rv;,¡,J\\oJ)~, t\il.'n ¡(thi" ne'...· ¡,kvc!upmO;'IH I:, t..'UI rr.:ntJy unJt:r ;.:u,'s'n:¡;'" ¡tlll; · .\.s5Ig:l:) approat:h .::and tkpólnurc.: mUlc) In an IlIogj¡,;al t'.a=-h:OI~ ~iJ "s lu a..oiJ ¡,;un~c$lcJ str~chi and to JIIilllmilC thc ,,¡pp.uent tr<l:" j...' irapa...:[s (roU(!.' ;'I~si~nmcnh , ¡uul.J he hil:"ed 111\ ": (I~t¡¡l~ If,,¡I,i; p.¡¡t.,.:r ~luJJ"::-i); ur . R¡';¡;\HlHlwnds rO;IJwJY nnpw....cmen!s only ....llhlO Ihe \,;OIIIIIIUI¡IIY wllh kgaiJurl~J.\,;tllllì u..~r {I'~ Jc\duplll":llI rJlh..:r th"¡JlII1 ..111 I hI.: ..ùIlHIIUI:I!IC:-i Ih~t will be: ..ffç(..'lcd by thl.: JJJr.:J lrJ.ITj¡,; .wnullllulI": ratl¡.... <If 11'..Irt.....:! ---- Thr.: J.uthor~ :>ugb..::.1 that the 1.:;1~ICSt -N'JY 10 'ui¡,;kly JuJge a Iraftit,; .stuuy IS 10 C)"~II1j¡IC Ih~ -:la:uy of its Js.sUl1lptu,,ms. ;lII.tJ)~C)" ..IuJ ïlltlHlg~" The) w.ulllh.at :'01;1<': .Illo1l})I..') Jls~ui"~t..· kcy <.:Jcmcnb thwugh lhc u:,c vI" t..:..:hnl:':OlJ Jargun, I..'onfu:-ilng LJbles ;mJ IlJu.str;HI III~. J.nJ lIIuluplc "'ppcnJu.:cs. \\'ha( (}C~iJ.:lIllIIpru~~lIIcnts Can Mi'i~atl: I"raflil" Pruhll'III~'! SOfTIC communI!!!.:') simply pruhlblt J~vclopmc:nts that oVcrlt)~J llX:01J ')tr~cts. FlJr cx..unpic, [t,c Jut~au, ALa.ska. Wiling t..uJ\: prulllbJt_\ Olny m~Jur t.!e\cJupIlICllllhJt ~r~~ult.s in J rcdu¡,;tion of two l!::yc:Js of ~ervit..'c: or J ')avJ\;C level D or Jess." UouJJ!.:r, Cùlur;.¡Jù, oi1bo strongly ¡¡nllts Jny dc.:vclùplllcnl thai ......¡ I "v\o'crlo..lJ ",ny local. colh:(.:lùr, or Jncflal :-.lrc~t an till' 1IllIlIl.:diJ.tc Jrt:Ol bc)'ond a Icvel ot' .sen- i¡,;~ C JS J¡;tr.:rmwèo by {h\: i.'rIIl!,,:"'} l'Jw,: m..:.hoJ," Bur mJ.ny 100.:al communillcs cannm afford to lotall)' protllhit IIC""" JI..'"dùpll~r.:IIt. Instr.:."j, thcy IiIU:,t lry 10 Hlitlgah: Ihe trJlfil..' I111P;'¡l..'tS ùf m::w Jcvdt>pmcnl by rr.:quifing changc.:s in dcveluplllc.:1lI plans. In flolf To Lima Tru¡jic CCJIIgc.'JIÙml" }'our CUlfIlI/w!lry by \\,ilbur Smith Jnd AS~iXLatl.:s (Huu.so1tonie V:dley Cuuned Of Elcl..'tcd Officials, Bruoklit:ld C:mer, Connel..'u¡,;ut, ¡Y~4" the: foHowing tralfl"; IIHIIgallon .sICpS arc :'L gg.I..'~(¡,;:J: · Arrange traffil..' .I.,;ccss W a..·ùid the use of local rcsidcntiOlI :-.lrcl.:l3; · Arrangc cruri.m..:c and ~xíl drivc::.. so th"l th¡,:y arc h,x:atc¡J on stn':c.:l3 thJ.1 .Ire tllc lca!oot ~Ùn¡;c:,(c.:d or h¡¡l;.¡rJuus; .. RC''4uirr.: off·sill: improvc::mc::nts lh..t will a¡,;cOl1lml1Jate the ;llnOunt and IYpè:. uf traUic gent:ralc:J by Ihe: propuscd use:; · RC4ulrc ~J.Jr..:ty Improvt:mcnb, likc aJdc.:J turnín~ I.anc.:s, !ralli!"'" ¡Jin:l..'tlolIJ.1 islJ.lld), (rorllJ.~": f,-JOI!"h. JnJ othc:r drive:ways anu tranic l'omrols. th¡¡t will ru Juee (ranie hó.ìlarJs: · Design entraaccw:tys so that they h.t\oc )IJllicíent capóaclI)" to prevent ~ucuing of vehicles on any strect; · Design drl....cways with proper grade.), 'Jliglllnenh. and sil"'; dlstiJf1~CS for .s&lle, curl\o¡,,:I1Ii':IU, J.nd ..:ftit..ïc:nl ;.1l..'l'C:\:,; · RC'Iuirc Jrive:wOlY I..'unne¡,;tions to adjt)íning lols when su¡,;h dnv;,:wJY) would allow ~ars tl) (ravel bC[\\II..'~n 11,1,'0 C,\ISllng uses wilhooJt going hack un the .slre:ct~ anJ · ~IIIIÍI~lIlC Ihe m.mb~r of JClvew~y I..'~Jml~~tlUU", to [hc .street 11.1 funlil.:r f;~~ílH:I[t..·lral ì¡,; tlLJ.\ on flic :\~r.;t..·I. Plalllll:rs ::.hlluJJ rC\.fulrc tr¡¡llit: sll.dl;':) c¡'L.I:g':·~c.::II~ ,-lc('d( ~IJ1It:ìltS ;¡nd ¡J.¡;\...!t Ipmc.¡ ~ tllat ¡;....u.:rOlte si¡;nifi":Jut ;un\JuOl~ of Irafljc. ~~II~t 101.:;&1 govl,;roll,¡;nt:; hJ\o'¡'; Ih¡¡J~ O.'IItJl"inIIU') In"'c~In ~¡,{' in k,«1i '1oircl.:{ Jy~(elTl"', JuJ It.i~ ItI"i..:\(¡II....n{ IS ~quJnJl..'rcd jf 'trt:t h he..:un:c ~ho!~~J with tr.I:li¡,,; l'I;.mllers ";01/1 pr¡";"'l..'fill!HS WJ"~l;; by rt.:l ulflllþ traltì..: J JlIJ'~I..¡ '11t.ll) 'I.:>. III Ihe.: c;,¡rJJt.:~1 ~L.I~I,;.) td.k \ dIJ lI¡¡;':1l1 rn II..'W alld ;lrpr(Jv~J. .--.- 7éIep/tÞ".: ¿ ") f ...,~... )~aWIT~[ t~ - APR 2519å!J~1! ,~ ~L' ''-,- 1(;"" F.u.1 j PLANNING & ZONIN( DEPARTMENT April 21, 1989 ,~~":'!~ ~ . , ~ 1 f ;. ;,'- ~':. :~ ,.. l'I JI ~": :. J '1,"( "..' 'f . . .; .~ Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Planning Board Town of Queensbury Town Hall Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12801 Re: King Fuels Proposed Facility Corner Quaker Road and Dix Avenue Dear Mr. Roberts, We received a call from Mr. Hatin, Director of Buildings and Codes for Town of Queensbury asking whether we had started our project. King Fuels has not started the project and would never consider doing so with out first obtaining Planning Board Approval and Building Permit. On February 21, 1989, we spoke to Whiley Russell from the Queensbury Building Department and he indicated that we could remove the top soil and fill in the site prior to obtaning Planning Board Approval. There was no mention in our conversation of any additional requirer.1ents or restrictions on bring in or grading the fill material. We have Rn opportunity to obtain fill material at a very resonab1e price and with men and equipment available we decided to bring the material in; other- wise we would have had to lay these men off. If there was a misunderstanding on our part for bringing in the fill material we apologize and pledge to only do work in conformance with the Town of Queens- bury requirements. Sincerely, . ,.----;:7 ~ V / ~7h?t.é? ;/i£~«.A James E. Pollock Director of Development THE KING SERVICE, lNC, cc: Edwin D. King ¡ ~ f,- ... ASSOCIATES, PC o.......:,ULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518, 793·4141 Ji1i~~!~, "LANNING '~.::7) ~ DEPARTt~Z~'NC fILE COpy ~arch 15, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: King Fuels - Site Plan No. 20-89 Site Plan Review Dear Ms. York: The following are review comments on the above-referenced project: 1. Four entrances from this site appear excessive especially considering the proximity to the Dix Avenue/Quaker Road intersection. Consideration should be given to a revised site plan which provides for one (1) combined entrance and exit off Quaker Road, and one (1) entrance off Dix Avenue, with the entrances located as far away from the intersec- tion as possible. 2. No drainage calculations are provided. 3. Twelve-inch culverts are small and subject to plugging. Culvert sizes should be larger for easier maintenance. 4. Percolation test data and septic design calculations should be provided. 5. Des i gn of underground fue 1 storage system shou 1 d be in accordance with NYCRR Part 614 for Underground Petroleum Storage. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. - /' , ------~ (, ~ , Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Planning Board Members $ GLENS FALLS. NY·lACONlA NH .. - -../ ~ R~ ,f ASSOCIATES. PC c:bRSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518· 793·4141 .. é>...<Ì4 ': r.~\-[ W ç :":", I \ :.f \,' ¡)/') , I ¡ 'J.' I t, \. Y. ~".~) \ I ~ '/' ¡' \¿~"¿- .. - ~: \~ ÄYR 2 s 1~~~ U-! - r f' ,... ,. "": 'flit \r )tANNn~G 2. ZONlf ( C"\F:P^PT~"!eNT April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: King Fuels Site Plan No. 20-89 Dear Ms. York: The following are review comments on the above referenced project: 1. Drainage calculations have been provided, but no provisions are made to reduce peak runoff rates through retent ion. Drainage sub areas are not identified. In addition, the existing culvert under Quaker Road at the south end of the site is not labelled as to size, condition or capacity. On- site retention should be provided. 2. Traffic information provided by Greiner appears to make reasonable provision for future improvements in Quaker Road and Dix Avenue. 3. Sept i c system des i gn details and soil test data have been submittep and appear to be satisfactory. The percolation rate of the fill material should be noted on the plans. 4. If King Fuels donates future right-of-way to Warren County, as recommended in the Greiner letter of March 30, 1989, will there still be at least 30% permeable area on the site? Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. ,0/1·· / /t~ 1A,,! ~yne G]nnett, P.E. Managi~g Project Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members @ GLENS FALLS, NY·l.AOONlA. NH \J o FILE COt ..~ \..-~ I'OWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12801·9725 - 518·792·5832 '"': ~ ':. :....:. . r:: '~ , ·,a©EUWr..., ~~AR141989~ ,,!'r'ch .l.J, li}[;'} '1'0 : :,,' [' XTü II C c> uut,¡r )' J.8l~ilJ. jj:- ,0:.' ru ,/(ucenf;bul'Y 'Ú)\ tl rJ>~tlijÜI{': UO:.il'Ü A ~) ~) 1 i c an t .. 0;') .,~(.l ::5 it e Plan ;;vs..."... King ~_, Ð x'vi c e E: , ìl.AHN.NG a ZON'NC; DEPARTMINT '~ø · _I"..... . 1Hx '\v(;. .~: l.~unJ;:er r~or' II In the 8.i)sence of f/ir. fio ÌJert ;';cJdy, Cl1i'.ir~w,n ,nud '1 t the rer¡I,I':""' t of .1 Hldf.'S .f:'ol.lock, Director of J'evn.lo!1I1Ip,ì'\;, !Cill.": nl'viepp: 'llro,\', who ~,L'O or').:?:e(~ fIT not s':-~owinE up ;¡,t the ()ueE:~ls;.'Ül'.Y Cül'~¡aitLp.f: for (.)O;¡11;111¡Üty :>p::ltifi.c~,t1.(llL 01\ I" 1 7th b 1, , 't .' 1 ('tl t' - d{·.rC 1 , e_~ev~nr.: ~. w;:.s h','t'e 1 u 1, ·111'('.. 1,'f.'ii;!Jnrf.; (11' our con:·' tt'·(', nH,"p I;,', LIrs. ,;enpy, ¡"·,rs. (jor-line :.nd ;:.1''''. \luitin!r r'I'vie\':pl1 ',fit' !'~1\;0 ¡¡1:Jt1 :-'lbr,;i.ì;¡;('(I :'[ (: l1"ve f'C'V('l'o,J qu.ostÜlnr 1.1!ltl l'(~co::':' f",d··t LUllf'. l.,rould like to f::ee IJlnll!;(H;' c.rcultd fJiplJ. Is thir: in n grHf'~~f'(ì ~tr""':' , L· O"U.t;OllS Of all ,,~'TtH]8ell {ll'el'.s. 1- .J I P l' "n .:I . I )0 /.' ¿. ...... _ ~;5',v '... P}'Ol'o:·"eu ,Jerl'1eCJ,u..(' ;'1'8[: ,J'.:.u.:') 3. i;;ol'e véirieù. cluster µÜ'! Ii;í ~;g;¡. Vir' lit 1. tl,";S "~ecm s I)' l'S6. 4. COJii:Ü ttee concerned \";1 tL~ muniJüI' 01' eurL' cuts 'tiLat could :LLo\" lira! fie GO cut ncross nndbc }vlzurdous. 5. Are trwse rFtiseù islands ot' :,I.nntel's lictwüeu curb cute rn;eJ'c f:hI'LllH~ ;;.re i.tlùic8. t cù'i 6. 'doult1 lll'.c t(., see GlOre (.;CJ'l~'e tZ'Q0!' liP;'!' E:¡ct 1)1'0,.'01 t.y .1.ÍiIlJ \re:u') \'!~l\'iC i.'úunt:lin 1\,611 ;).1'(>, Ìilùic¡;õ,terl. 7. l~o!' muletl, reco!ìHitend In.w.1~-cr.1pe 01' fi¡} ,~l'f;l'.H.~ WJt \"d.tll t!lE' y';OoÜ clll) f.: or pe[~.t mo~.;r:. (Je ..:feco;~ll~~eI!.d clLt1:1IJf1tCI' e1lcloseù \Vittl Çl~;1.ill lil1\{. 1eIlee tJ..nò. Ðl(:1~tn, sÌ.laiJ:-'I' to the one ~).t King Foods, l}UHker HÜ~J,d. J. I,',aintcllance of proUe1'ty. 'rhe site plat] revie\....ed shows, lantlf3cÐ.['il!"; \";ith 4 Îr:o·'t:\;:·· LU 1\St1, ;..~! :lrIJorvit¡.¡e, mulch of wood bark Chips or pce.t mons, tU-l lÎ.istur~:ed are:~s top soil 'Intl eeed, shrubs adj1.!cent to hi£hv'::'-Ys mnilltÐ.ined ~t lesG ti;.an 3' heÌ<'ht, 3 p,-"'-rking f" ;)D.Ces Hi1.d frf-'e standinr. confon!ing sifT,t!. -~'hin is n. highly visi tJle n.r'~;ì i.n n r[)l.lÜU,jr r,rowiJJg eOJwp.c:'cÜd zonc.~~]!e e:OI:w1i1.tp(1 fcpÜ; the Jil;.tin~(1I;:.'.1!t'e of this conwr is of utlnost iinpor-tance. "ì.e iee.L comfoI'table with tlie l"LJdsc8.l)e contrF1ctol' wi tll Wlll)Hl we confer:! nù ~_ ,(1 ttlflt the ~tpnJ.il'A.nt i~ ri!:o¡Üng fl. cc!:cE'rnpd effort. ,~e, t~~erefore, ¡ÜVL:: cúnce ptw-tl ap1lroval 't;o tit C r-l iif! p 1.:./1 ~1H\ "it t;e<l :Llld ref~ I.I.(~F t ttte "pp I j,('[" n t appeFr [t·t the April 10, l~ßJ meHtiug of the LueenstJl,¡ry COllllriL ttee for COlll1duni t.y Dcnutificntion so the f;l.1.l IfIclilbp'I'r.1Üp cl'1n l'p.view ~Ù:"IS :'t t;ti~ ti)'~o n:ltl. lVi.'le allquestiuns anuwercd. G~r5~rot N. ~eney, ~ecretory 8 Qv.eensbuI'Y Avenue (,,'ueensbury, Hew York 122-04 , , I' , r' t .I I I). ',I' , . , , (r:' Copy:lì.obert Ec1<.iy, ChHinne.n "HOME OF NATURAL8EAUTY, , . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED , 763 , '- ~ .. - FILE C\n --A".--- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road. Queensbury. NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 F:;,' r1AR 1 7 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 20-89 Applicant/Project Name: King Services, Inc. The applicant must meet the requirements of Section 5.070 prior to receiving site plan approval. A. The applicant has received a variance for the canopy which encroaches on the setbacks on both Dix A venue and Quaker Road. B. The use is in keeping with the purpose of the zone and is compatible with the neighborhood. C. Concerns over the number of road cuts and their proximity to the intersection of Dix and Quaker were raised at staff review. Presently, the lot is vacant. The angle of the intersection makes for a dangerous situation. By increasing the level of activity on the site this situation will become worse. The possibility of limiting the roadcuts or moving them away from the intersection should be investigated. D. It does not appear that this proposal will have any undue adverse impact on any of the development considerations set forth in Section 5.071. E. 1. 5. 6. 7. 9. Although light poles are indicated, the type and direction of lighting is not. Storm water drainage facilities are shown. However, the adequacy of this system should be determined by the Boards engineer. S2~a~c.:bove The proposal does not indicate what type of ground cover will be used in the unpaved areas. Because significant grading will be taking place, the change in existing drainage patterns should be considered. JG/sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 fI' WARREN COUNTY ~- '- PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518· 761·6410 DATE: March 15, 1989 RE: King Services, Inc. TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Gentlemen/Ladies: Corner of Dix Ave. & Quaker Rd. SPR tþ 20-89 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 15th day of March , the above application for a Site Plan Review to conRtrllct a motor vehicle fuel sales facility with a retail convenience food store. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Approve ( ) Disapproval ()() Modify with Condit ions ( ) Re turn Comments: Application was approved with the condition that the 2 curb cuts closest to the light on Dix Avenue & Quaker Road be eliminated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M, with regard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements that must be adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, the'municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency shall file a report with the Warren County Planning Board on the ~ce$saj. .fO:"'-)'.- ) f ') ,( / OR ¡ r ' .' / ", . "~I ~. \ \) ! ,) ¡ , , - Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman John McGilvray, C~rman " .' .--. ~ C' - ""F' /,<'...... ',...- '7'..i., .:;-._,. ..JWtv, .... oJ' ~> IE©îil'&1i1í I ß APR1&1989~ ..... :::,¡þ. -. .- .~ PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Apcil lS', 1989 FILE COpy Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman Planning Board Queensbury Town Office Bay & Haviland Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Dear Mr. Roberts: ~e: Xip.g Fu?l~ Construction of fuel sal~3 facilities and retail convenience food store. The Glens Falls Independent Living Cente~ would like to have the Board keep in mind handica~ped park- ing and building access, according to N.Y.S. Building CCd9S. Onc~ ¿~din thank you for Y0U~ support in C~= effc=ts to iæprvv~ the quality of li[e [or the dlSab~&d. Sincerely, ~~~ond Archit~ctural Bar~j~r CO~3~ltaDt HR:nc Quaker Boy Center Corner of Quaker & Bay, PO Box 453, Glens Falls, NY 12801, VOice (518) 792-3537 TTY TDD (518) 792-3548 , \.",-", TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATIONJrii.,' " Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280.4: Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. l280~ --:- ~ iJ' 1 . .~' \J I 1 Secretary To: (X) Warren County Planning Board Date:4/10/88 (X) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (X) APplicant Re: Site Plan #20-89 King Fuels Quaker Road at Dix Aven. We have reviewed the request force ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations: (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval Mr. Pollock and Architect Paul primeal described plans for the road construction at the corner of Dix and Quaker and how their traffic would be handled when that work is completed and then described how their planting plans would fit into this picture. Plans call for plantings of Mountain Ash, junipers and the use of annuals. After planting plans were described there was considerable discussion of snow removal, dumpster and other details were going to be handled. Planting plans were approved as submitted. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that, it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~. e tfully submitted, vj:v.L_~/ -I:~?~ ~obert L. Eddy, Cha~an ,. '~ -Jown 0/ Queendburlj - --- '- '-~- r.:>-' "NOTE TO FILE· PLANNING DEPARTMENT JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER DATE Application Number: <:; p 1?-lqRq Applicant/Project Name: Curtis Lumber The applicant has submitted a plan showing all of the property owned by Curtis Lumber. They have also submitted a revised Site Plan addressing many of the concerns from the previous meeting. Tom Nace will review the plans from an engineering perspective. As was stated in the notes of March 17, ]989 there ~s a problem of circulation between the two Curtis Lumber sites. I would suggest that the Board consider adopting all of the conditions the Warren County Planning Board placed on it's approval of this site plan. ... .. John Goralski Planner BAY AT HAVILAND ROAD QUEENSBURY. NEW YORK, 12801 TELEPHONE: (518) 792-5832 SETTLED 1763 . . . HOME OF NATURAL BrAUn. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE ¡ ~ »¡,., jšf ASSOCIATES, PC. ~SULTlNG ENGINEERS '-' ...- f i L [ ~':' ~~ y - --- -.../ 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 ·l@.\~~ilW[t· ,& APR 25 198~ ~ilJ 518· 793·4141 .)lANNING & ZONINt: "ePARTMENT April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Curtis Lumber Company Site Plan No.ll-89 Site Plan Review Dear Ms. York: The following are review comments on the above-referenced project: 1. Drainage calculations have been provided but appear to be in error. Two different soil types are noted, with the developed condition showing a higher infiltration capacity than existing condition soils. Unless all the on-site soils are being replaced, this is not a realistic assumption. 2. A percolation test should be done to verify dry well capacity. 3. The other items noted in our March 15, 1989 letter have been addressed. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. .-" /" . ' " . . /'// /w~~~nett, P.L Man~~i~~r Project Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members e GlENS FALLS. NY·!.ACONtA, NH .' WARREN COUNTY F I LEe ~~ '- ',,-- -' --/ PLANNINC ~OARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518·761·6410 DATE: April 13, 1989 RE: Robert Curtis '~·.<~wv·,,·, C',,, . '~J ~' .. ,,: :;~ i. ¡ ~., -t~ ;j''": '- i ."' I~ L I 198~ g TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Gentlemen/Ladies: ·Western Ave. .~ ;,:,:; & ZONlr!, .. ':·r~J·' ..···U..fûT SPR II 12-1989 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April , the above application for ~ ~itp pl~n rp\1ip~ fnr thp rtømnlition clearin~ and grubin~ of land & to build ririving ::Inri p~rking ~rp~ F. l11mnør c::t-n""gø barns. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Approve ( ) Disapproval (X> Modify with Conditions Return Comments: A' :ication was approved with the conditions that STOP signs be placed on HOlden Ave., .lat the parking in the front of the building be eliminated, that there be designated parking for 15-20 cars, and that the outside stored material on Western Ave. site be moved to the new parcel. Also one-way traffic entering from Western & exiting to Holden & not allowing entering from Holden Ave. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M, with regard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements ~Iat must be adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring actions. time, the municipal agency. accompanied by a full statement for such If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof. the-municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3. ) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency shall file a report with the Warren County Planning Board on the· ~ec ssa~y fo[in . I .' (~.. 0./ OR Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman " .', .. ~. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road. Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 fiLE LJ ---- April 20, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 9-1988 Applicant/Project Name: Kenneth Ermiger FINAL STAGE A request was made by the Board that one access way to the properties be shown on the map. The map submitted shows a proposed 50 foot right of way into the property. The map also shows two driveways off of Route 9 into the Whitney Electronics facility. If the Board's intent is to limit future road cuts it should be noted on the map that all properties will access on to the proposed interior roadway. This will allow Whitney Electronics to have their present access points. Upon completion of a roadway it should be understood that the access points would be terminated and Whitney Electronics or whatever tenant might be there would utilize the internal roadway. LA Y /sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 , ~~ ~I....~,¿~ ~ ~..~ \)~©-~~wr\~; I~ APR 25198~ ~jLr - ~ 5f ASSOCIATES PC ~ULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 JlANNING & ZONIN' "EPARTMENT 518, 793·4141 April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Kenneth Ermiger Subdivision No. 9-1988 Final Plans Dear Ms. York: We have the following comment on the above referenced project: 1. Since the site is in the travel corridor overlay zone (Section 4.030 Zoning Ordinance), the front setback must be 75 feet. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST A~SOCIATES, P.C. ;i'~',;. . .. .. ' ''I. ~/ ~ Wayn'Gannett, P.E. Man~ing Project Engineer WG/ma i cc: Planning Board Members @ GLENS FALLS, NY· LACONIA. NH ¡ ~ ~ '- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 FilE CI1.-~ April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 7-1989 Applicant/Project Name: Farm to Market Commons SKETCH PLAN The subdivider proposes to create three lots for commercial development. The zoning is HC-IA and the three lots will be 1 to 1.5 acres each with an access way off of Route 149 and an access way off of Bay Road. The parking represented is 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area which is the requirement for retail stores. The plan does indicate a potential for commercial which is 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft., which is less than for retail. The plan indicates a total of 5,480 sq. ft. of building area and 60 parking spaces so the plan is in compliance as far as parking goes. The lot sizes on which the roadway is located are sufficient to have maintain the maximum buildable lot for a conventional subdivision (page 28 Subdivision Regulations). The developer has internalized his roadway to limit road cuts. Under these circumstances he does not have to maintain double the lot width on arterial roads. The plan indicates that "light woods" will be maintained to provide the permeability. The zoning criteria as far as setbacks and lot width and depth have been met. The 50 ft. buffer zone between a commercial and residential area has been maintained. The drainage appears to be handled by catch basins and existing drainage swales. There are seven catch basins shown on the site. The Board may wish to request an alternative, since in frozen soils these tend to fail and hazardous conditions on major roadways could occur. The project will require permits from DOT and Warren County DPW. The developer plans on-lot septic and wells. The two southerly lots do not have the required 100 ft. seperation distance between the wells and fill systems. Development of the approved lots would be required to submit for site plan approval. LA Y /sed "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY, . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ¡ ~.- _ ~~.....c;-;:. ,.. ,:::::\ .:: <\ '..J J;':::::)-" - -....-- -' - .~ )$T ASSOCIATES PC .~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518' 793·4141 .. "'--' F ¡ ~ -- --../ """'" ;... '._ '- .II ': r.'c:J~jW'r.", I~i:~~~ ;51~8~~jL "...,....... April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 "LANNING & ZONiN: ~I:Pt\RTMENT Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Building Re: Farm to Market Commons Subdivision No. 7-1989 Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above referenced project and have the following comments: 1. The applicant proposes only one access point from Route 149 and Bay Road to the subdivision. This approach makes sense to 1 imit the number of curb cuts onto the highways. The access drives should provide deeded right-of-ways, or easements which should include agreements between the lot owners on maintenance responsibilities. 2. Road cut permits will be required from Warren County and New York State DOT. DOT will also have to revi ew the proposed culvert on their right-of-way for the Route 149 entrance road. 3. Percolation tests will be required at preliminary plan submission for septic system design. The applicant has proposed fill systems, given that soil borings show mottling indicating seasonal high groundwter. A minimum hundred foot separation must be kept between all septic systems and domest i c well s. 4. The drainage report for the site will need to address on-site retention due to increase in developed areas, while not interfering with septic system placement. 5. Handicapped parking spaces should be indicated at final site plan review. ~ GLENS FALLS, NY·lACQNIA, NH \.- ',-, ~ '---- ...-' --./ Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Farm to Market Commons Page 2 April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 6. The long form EAF to be included with preliminary plans, should address full build out of the site. Very truly yours, RIST-F~OST A~OCIATES, P.C. ..., {,../J' /~. ~¡ .- . /' I '1~ ~t··· !Myl1e ,(1anneft, P. ('., -: ' Managthg Project Engineer WG/ma i cc: Planning Board Members .. " TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road. Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 FilE Cb-.~ April 25, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 8-1989 Applicant/Project Name: Marilyn VanDyke This applicant proposes to subdivide her property into two parcels of approximately 9.7 acres each. The applicant has requested a waiver from the requirement for a drainage report and the plan indicates a limit to the field topographic survey. The unique circumstances on this property should be stated in any approval of these requests. The applicant has received the required area variances for this subdivision, with conditions. The condition is that Deed Restrictions be written stating that there will be no further subdivision of these lots. This was also a condition of A.P.A. approval. It might be advisable to have this stated on the filed plat also. Existing and proposed drainage patterns are indicated on the plan. The proposed contours around the proposed house and driveway should be on the plan. The intrinsic development suitability map shows low development suitability. This is mainly due to the severe slope of the property. If the difficulties c~used by the severe slope (drainage erosion) can be mitigated there should be no problem with this proposal. JG/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY.. A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ¡ - - , :=;,¡:---c-::.. ~~::;'\::.i~ '-,"" ~"--- ST ASSOCIATES PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FAllS. NY 12801 518' 793·4141 ¡ .- ..-- ~..... } 'I r~,Ci~~\tìJ;t-. \~.. L;) \~~-;; JJ \!J lSi j i )\ APR 2 5 198~ ~] April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 .)LANNING & ZONINC ')EPARTMENT Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Marilyn J. VanDyke Subdivision No. 8-1989 Preliminary Plans Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. Septic system details are shown; however, a perc test should be included to justify the assumed percolation rate. 2. The size of the proposed cul vert at Bay Road shoul d be indicated along with sufficient design information to show adequacy of culvert size. The applicant has requested a waiver from a drainage report which we concur with. We have no further comments. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. -;,' ~ ~. C·l....,.....) /.~ , Wayne Gannett, p.r. Mana~ng Project Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members @ GLENS FALLS, NY·LACONIA, NH TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 FILE CD¡~_ _ ..-' April 25, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan review 29-89 Applicant/Project Name: Wor1co Management Systems The applicant proposes to build a 1993 sq. ft. addition to the existing building. This will more than double the size of the building. The plan as should meets all of the dimensional require- ments of the zone. It is also conistent with the purpose of the zone and The Master Plan. The existing drainage patterns will be significantly changed by the proposed project. The non-permeable area on the site will be increased by over 4000 sq. ft. The Boards engineer should determine if the proposed swale will be suf- ficient to handle the increased run off. This may require drainage calculations from the applicant. There also appears to be an existing drainage pattern within the 25' wide ease- ment at the west of the property. The note on Sheet PP-2 appears to indicate that contours will not change in this area. It seems difficult, if not simply inconvenient, to have parking spaces with a drainage swale running through them. JG/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 f' '~~~ -='_=.~,~,,~ ~ ST ASSOCIATES. PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518, 793,4141 -' ~. ~ -- ,.../ ~f ~ ~~J~rJjfiWLE' ,I. APR 2 f) 198~ ilL 1'. "~".:.,.,J. 't_ .¡ , :i April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 :~LANNrNG & ZONINC QEPARTMENT Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Worlco Management Services, Inc. Site Plan No. 29-89 Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. The appl icant indicates the number of persons using the septic facilities, but has not provided perc test and design details of the existing absorption field demonstrating the adequacy of that system. 2. 00 the terms of the water main easement a 11 ow for gravel parking over the water main? 3. A revised grading plan with drainage calculations and storm water management should be provided taking into account the increased building and paved area. 4. Typical pavement and gravel sections should be shown. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. I ' ,; ~ ~at~nn:tt, P.E. Man~~~~' Project Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members :e GLENS FALLS, NY' LACONIA. NH '- ',- ~ I r---" ~ ( . /, ;;;:¡'f: ~ I'··, ..- ~'-... '---../-- .' -L. .,~)~fiwr*ll, ib'- APR 191989~ ,. '-. .. '--< PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT Apeil 19, 1989 Mr. Richard Roberts, Chairman Planning Board Queensbury Town Office Bay & Haviland Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 Dear Mr. Roberts: Re: Worlco Management Services, Inc., Site No. 29-89 Th€ Glens Falls Independent Living Centee woulà li~c to see that this peoject has accessible peovisions ð~ccrding to N.Y.S. Cedes with regards to parking, peoper 8drkings, entrance ways: rest rooms and accessible woek .-:~ ~: S .':.';:~ . it ~ =a¡~ ~~ of ~3S~::t~~cel 9:s~3e j:) ~,~t h23i~3~~ I "_, ::-::....1 !:Tie. ~·l r~~; e::- ~ 1 Y . ~or:s ul tar.:: HR:nc Quaker Bay Center, Corner of Quaker & Bay, PO, Box 453, Glens Falls, NY 12801, Voice (518' 702-3537 TTY TDD (518) 792-3548 .. WARREN COUNTY ~" ......... . "---" FiLE Ct¡-/J PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518-761·6410 T.' It)' " '\ "I 1'] , - '"-1 ,""" '« ,1\_ I ""-,"'jl "qUú ".) 1,,0_ DATE: April 13, 1989 RE: Worlco Management Services ?¡ ~CN:)¡ TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Gentlemen/Ladies: 1!:~"''''r 378 Bay Road SPR IF 29-1989 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April , the above application for a site plan review for additional office space. was reviewed, ('I:J Approve c6mments: and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Disapproval ( ) Modify with Conditions ( ) Return --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M, with r0~ard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements that must be adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2. ) If the reco~endation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, the municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3. ) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency shall file~a report with the Warren County Planning Board on the nece~sary form.1 ! I ). . -. ¡ ~ ',- >~ / OR Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman John McGilvray, .. WARREN COUNTY -.~_. "- .- PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518· 761·6410 PLANNING AND ZONING REFERRAL REPORT FORM TOWN: QUEENSBURY DATE: APRIL 13 1 9 ....B..2. RE: WORLCO MANAGEMENT SERVICES 378 BAY ROAD SPR II 29-1989 WE HAVE REVIEWED THE REQUEST FOR: ( VARIANCE ( SPECIAL PERMIT ( SITE PLAN REVIEW AND HAVE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: ) APPROVE ) DISAPPROVE ) MODIFY WITH CONDITIONS COMMENTS: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/PLANNING BD. CHAIRMAN Please return signed copy of this report form within SEVEN(7) days of action to: Warren County Planning Board Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, ,New York 12845 .' J '--- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY f 1 L E CDF- COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION à~ '- Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12804 To: (X) Warren County Planning Board (x) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of (x) Applicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ Dater 4/10/89 Appeals Re: Site Plan #29-89 Worlco Mgt. Services, Inc. Bay Road and Walker Lane We have reviewed the request for: ( ) Variance, (x) Si te Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations: ( x) Approval ( ) Disapproval This property is one of he most attractive and well maintained in Queensbury. Planting plans approved as submitted, except that a row of arborvitae was suggested along the southwest corner of the property along Walker Lane to screen the planned car park. Information provided the committee indicated that it is unlikely that this parking area is needed and only provided on the drawings to comply with the number of spaces required by the ordinance. The Committee, in it's approval resolution, recommends the area "be gravelled, as needed". In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that, it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~tfully submitted, (~-j,-Z-^VÝ ~ fit~ Roc~rt L. Eddy, Ch~rman ,. '--' .~ ~ I~~ --. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 filE C~-d-/ Apri125,_1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Subdivision No. 9-1989 Applicant/Project Name: Cline Meadow Development This sketch plan application is for a seven lot subdivi- sion at the corner of Cline Avenue and Meadowbrook Road. Lot 7 fronts on Meadowbrook Road in two locations, Lot I has front- age on both Meadowbrook Road and Cline Avenue, and the remain- ing lots front on Cline Avenue. All of the lots are proposed to be tied in to the muni- cipal water and sewer system. The development is within both districts, however, a permit from D.E.C. is required to tie-in to the sewer. The most significant feature on the site is the D.E.C. designated wetland (G.F. I). It appears that the proposed design is sensitive to all of the regulations governing wet- lands, however, other permits may be required. (Town of Queens- bury Freshwater wetlands and D.E.C. wetlands). D.E.C. has been contacted in regard to Lead Agency status. They have requested all plans and applications and ask that Lead Agency status not be established until they fully review the plans. Another significant feature on the site is the drainage easement on Lot 3. The applicant proposes to extend this easement to the rear of Lot 3. An easement may also be re- quired to dump the water onto Lot 7. The Town Attorney should be consulted as to the proper procedure in this matter. The plan shows proposed contours only on Lot 7. The application states that the topography and drainage patterns will not change significantly after construction. Because of the proximity to the wetland, even a minor change in topo- graphy and drainage should be indicated on the plan. Drive- ways should also be shown since they will effect drainage. The layout of- the lots appears satisfactory, however, the access from the town maintained road to Lot 6 is tight. This should be reconsidered. The depth to high ground water map shows 0" - 18". The development suitability map indicates low development suit- ability. JG/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ¡ ~ ?~'J~ - - --~ - ~\ iT ASSOCIATES. PC c'tw'SULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518, 793·4141 ¡ '-- r· ... i ~~,L~fiW'~- Î. ) ¿. ~ t ~. APR 25198~ U, - -----"........" April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 .)LANNING 8& ZONINC OEPARTMENT Building Re: Cline Meadow Development Subdivision No. 9-1989 Sketch Plan Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. The 1 ayout of Lot 5 and 6 wi th a mi n i mum 40' frontage is awkward, requiring Lot 6's driveway to cut across the front of Lot 5. A better layout would extend Cline Avenue part way into the sewer easement and provide a cul-de-sac for more frontage at these two lots. 2. The house on Lot 6 is shown only 60' from the limit of the NYSDEC wetland. A hundred foot minimum separation is required without a permit from DEC. 3. Drainage and erosion control will be important because of the presence of wetlands. At preliminary plan submission, a drainage and erosion control plan should indicate how peak runoffs will be managed on site and wetlands protected from construction activities. 4. Type of vegetative cover should be indicated on the survey map. 5. If the area has been mapped for 100 year flood plan as determined by HUD, this should be noted on the survey. Very truly yours, RIS~JpoSTASSpcIATES, P.C. /7/r ~ '\tàl~e~, P.E. Mana~1h~"P~oject Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members ,* GLENS FALLS, NY' LACONIA, NH "- '-'-" . :o~k ~tate Departm-;nt of Environmental Conservation -Dlvlslon of Regulatory Affairs P.O. Box 220, Hudson Street Warrensburg, New York 12885-0220 Telephone: (518) 623-3671 or 668-5441 ~-/ .... ~ Thomas C. Jorllng Commissioner Mrs. Lee A. iork, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Bay at Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12804-9725 April 12, 1989 "'4"''''l !/ l!Jli!}' ø O~þ:Q cI ~ '" Developmen 1f"".~~NING' Re: SEQR Communication Lead Agency Coordination - Cline Meadow Queensbury (T), Warren (Co.) Dear Mrs. "lark: We received the identified communication and have the following comments (cne or more may apply): X DEC appears to be an involved agency. The likely permit(s) include: Freshwater Wetlands, Protection of Waters The action appears to be Type r which requires the use of the long Environmental Assessment Form. Required lead agency coordination does not appear to have been perf~rmed and is presumed unresolved. We are unable to ascertain our position due to missing information (identified bel a,,: as "other"). X Other: In as much as a substantial portion of the 20 acre parcel is within a designated freshwater wetland, our office would appreciate a site plan for the proposed subdivision that shows the boundary of the wetland and the lOa' adjacent area. In the meantime, our office recommends that the designation of a lead agency be postponed. We ask your cooperation in bringing this notice to the attention of any appropriate boards i~ithin your community or any applicants for permits before you. Should you ivish to respond, please address any correspondence to the undersigned. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, \ .! -C~--- .1\, \, .t1't~\ Division of Regulator" Region 5, Warrensb' ¡ , "- ~ I~~ .,' - fILE C II -,~ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804·9725-518-792-5832 April 25, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan 30-89 Applicant/Project Name: Dr. Shimon & MaIka Sha1it The applicant wishes to construct a 59,200 sq. ft. retail sales facility on 5.3 acres~ in an HC - J acre zone. The applicant has received a variance to encroach on the 50 foot buffer zone required along the portion of the southerly property line that abuts the residential zone. They are also in the process of seeking a septic variance to place leach fields under a parking area. Another requirement which has not been met is the provision of Section 7.071 which states: "Each parking space shall be reached by an access driveway at least twenty feet clear in width. The access drive to the south of the proposed building is only 15 feet wide. Also, the loading areas are only 10 feet wide. Section 7.073(A) requires 12 feet. The 376.34~ dimension on the property line toward the southeast corner of the property is incorrect. This should be changed on the approved plan. The proposed use of this property is allowable in the zone. The purpose of the Highway Commercial zone is to con- fine commercial development to these areas, while providing for minimal expansion, primarily through infi11. This pro- posal appears to be a maximum expansion. Although the mini- mum lot size, setbacks, and permeability requirements have been met, it is apparent from the variances required and other criteria that have not been met, that the proposed site plan is pushing the density limits for this parcel. Route 9 is the most heavily developed travel corridor in Queensbury. By virtue of its size alone this project will have an impact on, the area. It is the responsibility of the applicant and the Board to minimize any adverse impact wherever possible. Section 5.070(E) lists nine items which shall be considered by the Planning Board. I) The size and location of the proposed building will have a significant impact on the visual character of Rt. 9. As more buildings and larger buildings are constructed, Route 9 will take on a more congested character. Possibly "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. ,A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 ¡ TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 ---./-J by scaling down the building, and/or moving it back from the road and/or terracing it to more closely follow the existing topography these impacts could be minimized. 2) Although an adequate number of parking spaces have been provided, access to the rear lot is inadequate. A worst case scenario would be a busy rainy summer day with a truck manuvering into the loading zone. Access for emergency vehicles would be very difficult at best. It should be noted that the proposed ingress & egress to Route 9 should be safer than what currently exists. (If all other things remained the same.) 5,6) Storm water management and sewage disposal facilities will be reviewed by Rist-Frost Assoc. 7) An extensive landscaping plan has been provided. If the plantings are in scale with the building mass and well maintained they could greatly improve the structures aes- thetic impact on the area. This is a large scale project in one of the most visible areas of Queensbury. It involves a large building mass, filling up to twelve feet in places and a large parking area. The design should be sensitive to the characteristic of the site, the neighborhood, and guidelines set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Draft Master Plan. JG/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 .. ~ ~, 3T ASSOCIATES, PC ètm'SULrING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518, 793·4141 ,. ---- .".... r ~ " r --- '.-'..../ ... .. .,.r.. _. ""', .... ""'i ~I . t,;; 1 .i "';".#~t:~'il W· '''''', J'{,,:, '" ' !1, ¡. t/ I ~ '" ....),~..L \ Lr.. ¡ t' .\¿ ~\ , t\' APR 2 ~I~ö~ l~, April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 )i..ANNING & ZON¡~~·c Ir'IEPAPTMENT Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay and Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Dr. Shimon & Malka Shalit Site Plan No. 30-89 Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments re~arding the above referenced project: 1. This site is being intensively developed. In some areas, design standards are applied without any margin of safety. For example, clearances are tight at the two loading areas. It appears that vehicles will have a difficult time gaining access to the rear parking area when a tractor trailer is making a delivery at the loading area. 2. The 30.8% green area shown on the application does not check with actual measurements made from the site plan. The calculated green area is 28.9%. An additional 2,400 square feet of green area is required to meet the zoning requirements of 30%. ' 3. Due to the rapid percolation rate, the applicant proposes an aerobic sewage treatment system. The proposed septic tanks are too large according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Septic tink or Hpre-tankH capacity should be no more than 50% of the design flow for aerobic units. For this system, the septic tank is simply to settle out grease and non- biodegradable solids; not to serve as a treatment unit itself. It· is presumed that no 1 aundry and kitchen waste wi 11 be discharged which would require special design for the aerobic units. Any approval should stipulate that future uses including laundry, restaurants or food preparation be prohibited. 4. Seepage pi ts are proposed to be under a parki ng lot. A variance is required and has been applied for. $ GLENS FALLS, NY·lACONlA. NH "- ~ ~ --.-../..-' Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Page 2 April 24, 1989 RFA #89-5000 5. Due to the intensive development, special attention should be paid to erosion control during construction to minimize erosion or siltation of adjacent properties. Temporary shoring may be required, particularly for the retaining walls at the northeast corner of the property. 6. Typical sections should be provided for paved and gravel surfaces. 7. In the seepage pit detail, the NYSDEC specified 1-1/2" to 2- 1/2" diameter crushed stone should be used rather than 3/4" to 1-1/2". 8. The on-site traffic pattern may cause a safety problem when entering cars stop while trying to decide whether they can park in front or have to park in the back. This may cause incoming traffic to back up onto Route 9 during busy periods. Very truly yours, RIST:.FRQST ASS~OCIATES, P.c. - Î . I.~/þ~ ,~__'#- (/ J Wayne ßannett , P. E. Managing Project Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members ¡ ~ -.....-'-- "-- '",--- ~ / .!'hr, ... J....... æ~!~ I \--. I . '---~"--..... " > PLANNING . ZONING DEPARTMENT Apcil 19, 1989 Mr. Richard Robects, Chairman Planning Board Queensbury Town Office Bay & Haviland Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 fiLE COpy J¿ac Me. Roberts: Re: D~. Shi.Jon Sh~lit, Site Plan Nu. 30-89 HC-IA The Glens Falls Independent Living Center- would like the Pla~ning Boacd to ~ùve wcitten into the appcoval, if you do so, that hand it:ap access ibil i ty be :oet on the exterior as well as interior, which is so often oveclooked, if not me:1tioned. Or¡ce gg-lir~, tr:ank Y'(;:l fc·cýou~ a.~tcnt.içr" .L!': t,ì.11..5 :r\2'::'~:: . ~ ~ ~ 1 ,~"'\ Y:3 lit: I ru ~ y be -; f a s .3 :i. oJ ~ a n ~ e I ,"~ t', n ~. t. ~ '2 ~;; i ~ a :. a t.;.· ca,].]. Si:1cecely. +\~ Ha.r-vey Fa y!.1ond AcchjLe~t~ral B~r~i~~ Ca~s~lta~t HR:nc Quaker Bay Center, Corner of Quaker & Bay, PO Box 453, Glens Falls, NY 12801, Voice (518) 702-3537 TTY TOO (518) 792-3548 ,. WARREN COUNTY F: ',,-- "-- -- -../~--./ Telephone 518· 761,641 0 PLANNING BOARD . '~]\Ùl\- 'co;'; 1.1 !¡ l~i . . '198~ . d . \r'-· Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 DATE: April 13. 1989 RE: Dr. Shimon Shalit . .,: & ¿ONIN ~ ~.." ~ '" - &-""NT TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Gentlemen/Ladies: Rt. 9 SPR II 30-1989 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of Apri 1 stores. , the above application for a site plan review for retail was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Approve (~) Disapproval ( ) Modify with Conditions ) Return Comments: Application was denied because it was felt that the developer had an opportuni to make the situation better by Moving the building back farther on the property and redesigning the project. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M, with regard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements that must be adhered to: j 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the recommendation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, the'municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency shall fil~ a report with the Warren County Planning Board on the eC~~~JY.. fOr.~./. OR J! (.- / / J;~. t \ - ( Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman John MéGilvray, .¡ ¡ '-. '-- TOw N OF QUEENS BURY ..--- COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION ,FILE "-r( Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. l280~ Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ To: (X) Warren County Planning Board Date(4/10/89 (X) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of APpeals (X) APplicant 3D -~? Site Plan #~f -r Lake George Plaza Lake George Road We have reviewed the request for:( ) Variance, (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations: (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval Re: It was with considerable difficulty that the committee understood how the construction is to be handled at this location. The planting plans near the Lake George Road should maKe the center very attractive, but the committee questioned the use of some of the materials so near Route 9 with salt being sprayed in the winter off the roadway. The parking in front of the building is going to be handled with a planted divider. The species seemed satisfactory, but the committee was concerned about the pavement being right up to the covered walkway. The committee was criticized some time ago where plantings to separate pedestrian traffic entering the vehicular traffic were not provided. The space is not adequate here for planters between the walk and parking space. The representative was asked to inquire into placing planters under the canopy. Plantings along the outside edge of the building appeared to be satisfactory. Snow removal and water run-off seem to have been addressed. Parking at the rear under the building seems like a good use of the contour of the rear of the property. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that, it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the aþplicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~lfUl~y lb;?:tted, ~~EddY, Cha~n , TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road. Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 fILE L~' April 17, 1989 NOTE TO FILE LEE A. YORK, SENIOR PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan Review No. 31-89 Applicant/Project Name: Walter Dombek The application is for construction of two buildings, each 20 ft. by 50 ft. (8 ft. height) for boat storage. Because a portion of the Halfway Brook tributary which crosses the property will be enclosed with pipe a copy of the DEC permit and conditions has been attached. There are a number of eITors on the map presented. 1. The property is in the sewer district and the submission shows sewage tanks. 2. The submission shows a majority of gravelled driving surfaces. This is not the case. The majority of the property has been paved. In the HC-1A zone, 30 percent permeability is required. After reviewing the site it is my opinion that having the required permeability would be unlikely. It would be the developers job to prove that he can maintain it on his lot. Mr. Dombeck has received a 1986 Variance on his property (#1088). The stipulation placed on the approval was that the developer comply with the Beautification Committee recommendations. These are attached. The property appears to be in violation of an earlier Town approval. During staff review the Fire Marshall expressed concern about the potential for fire hazard with boat storage. He has submitted a letter which is attached. Under the circumstances I have to recommend that: 1. Mr. Dombeck comply with his previous Town approval. 2. That he respond to the Fire Marshalls concerns. 3. That he resubmit an accurate description/map of the site and address all requirements "A" through "2" on the checklist. LA Y /sed Attachments "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 (I" '~::>~n =!-. 'v :.::::::!: - - - ~ )81 ASSOCIATES PC CONSULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS. NY 12801 518, 793·4141 ¡ "-- ilªtJ~ãwr~il~' ~ !! APR 25198':1~L :JtANNING & ZONiNt: ~~PARTMeNT - -../-..-/ April 24, 1989 RFA #: 89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Sr. Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: Walter Dombek Site Plan No. 31-89 Dear Ms. York: We have the following comments on the above referenced project: 1. A field inspection showed the site to be almost entirely covered with pavement and buildings; there is almost no permeable area with the exception of the vacant ground designated for future buildings. The site plan indicates gravel parking areas rather than the pavement actually in place. We feel the site plan submitted is a misrepresentation of actual conditions. Furthermore, it is likely that pavement wi 11 have to be removed in order to meet the mi n i mum 30% permeable requirement for the HC-IA zone. 2. A grading and storm water management plan is not provided. Storm water management should take into account protection of the stream through the site. 3. Will the applicant be tied into the Quaker Road sewer system in the near future? This should be verified, since holding tanks are only allowed for temporary use. The existing system shows water service less than the minimum recommended 10 feet from the septic tank. 4. Parking layout is not shown nor are cross sections of paved and gravel areas. Very truly'yours, RIST::FR,OST M'SOCIATES, P.C. ...·/....·.l '--r~ t-, ; \ /(/~ / i1i;yt,e Gannett, P. E. Mana~ng Project Engineer WG/mai cc: Planning Board Members * GLENS FALLS, NY' LACONIA. NH '--- .- -- -. -/ TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THEODORE TURNER, CHAIRMAN 139 MEADOWBROOK ROAD GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801 SUSAN GOETZ 19 WIN.cREST DRIVE GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK 12801 TO: DA TE: Meadowbrook Mini Storage % Walter Dombek P.O. Box 649 Lake George, New York 12845 RE: Variance No. 1088, Meadowbrook Mini Storage, Meadowbrook Road June 18 , HS..L We have reviewed the request for ( ) AREA VARIANCE (X) USE VARIANCE ( ) OTHER and heve the following' recommendations: fC) Approve ( ) Disapprove RESOLVED: The Board approved - unnecessary hardship bgin~ ordin~n:c didn't spell out "storage". This use seems to be less intensive than what's allowed in Highway Commercial zone. This use is not detrimental to ordinance. This approval is subject tv Department of Environmental Conservation or any other agency that has jurisdiction over property. . STIPULATION: comply with Beautification Committee recc~~endations. Very truly yours, BY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF QUEENSBUR Y ~~~ Q,ÀAtLt Theodore Turner cc: Malcolm B. O'Hara Caffry, Pontiff, Stewart, Rhodes and Judge BEautification Committee cc: .I .' ·-- TOWN OF QUEENS BURY COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION - -' -...-/ '- Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue - Queensbury Glens Falls, N. Y. 12801 To.. C:) warren County Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Flanning Board <:0 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals (X) Copy to Appli cant Mrs. Ar~~ur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queen~bury Avenue - Queensbu~ Glens ~ci:ls, N. Y. 12801 . Late. 6/')/86 Re. ~:E'aèo'i:broo:-: ~~ini Storage ~~ado~broo~ Road We have reviewed the request for (x) Variance, ( ) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other and have the following recommendations. ( ) Approval (x) Disapproval This application has been disapproved by our Committee as data for landscaping, screening and plantings for the above applicant for a Site Flan Review or Variance has not been submitted or is incomplete. Would you please, therefore, refer the applicant to our Committee for approval of its plans prior to granting the application ~nding before your Board or before construction permit has been granted. You and the Building Department will be notified just as soon as plans have been approved by us. ~ Respectfully Submitted, .- ._\ - r - ; ( ( ..( . ... ,.'/~ . ,,' ; , Robert L. Eddy Chairman .. WARREN COUNTY .. --, "--- -~ PLANNING BOARD Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518,761·6410 DATE: April 13, 1989 RE: Walter Dombek TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay & Haviland Roads Que~nsbury, NY 12804 Gentlemen/Ladies: Meadowbrook Road, off Quaker Rd. SPR f! 31-1989 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April , the above application for a site plan review to construct two buildin~s for boat stora~e. was reviewed, and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Approve ~) Disapproval ) Modify with Conditions ( Return Comments: A~plication was denied based on the fact that the conditions that were on the original approval of this projpct were not carried out and the buildings being parallel to Meadowbrook Road was in conflict with original 20' x 80' that had doors on the southern end of the original proposal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-M. with regard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements that must be adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the reco~endation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, the municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency ~hall f~le a report with the Warren County Planning Board on the p~ces;~~,fbr;fii' ; I / // / I OR ¡~' +, / . ! I, Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman John .¡ -' '---. -' '--' PLANNING BOARD --./ '--' . -' -../ WARREN COUNTY Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518· 761·6410 PLANNING AND ZONING REFERRAL REPORT FO~~ TOWN: QUEENS BURY DATE:APRIL 13 19..8..2.... RE: WALTER DOMBEK MEADOWBROOK. OFF OUAKER RD. SPR II 21-1989 WE HAVE REVIEWED THE REQUEST FOR: VARIANCE SPECIAL PERMIT SITE PLAN REVIEW AND HAVE THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE DISAPPROVE MODIFY WITH CONDITIONS COMMENTS: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS/PLANNING BD. CHAIRMAN Please return signed copy of this report form within SEVEN(7) days of action to: Warren County Planning Board Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 '-- '--- TOW N OF QUEENSBURY'-' COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION FILE r;~ Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 12801 To: (X) Warren County Planning Board Date: 4/10/89 (X) Queensbury Town Planning Board ( ) Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals (X) Appli cant Re: Site plan #31-89 Walter Dombeck Meadowbrook Road We have reviewed the request for:( ) Variance. (X) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the following recommendations: (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval The committee expressed disapproval of the plantings alon~ the northerly border of the property as the plants are so small it will take years before they provide the screening the committee envisioned at the time of approval of the previous phase of construction. Rather than require replacement of those plants the committee suggested a vine be placed on the fence rather than shrubs that might eventually provide the screening. The committee came up with the idea that Dutchman's Pipe might be satisfactory. The applicant agreed to this and the committee approved. In addition to the above landscaping. screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that. it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attaohed plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant t? replace immediately ~ead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper ma~ntenance to all plan~~ngs. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plant~ngs shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ~tfu~ly submitted, (/~ / ¿f'¿:~~ ~ert L. Eddy, Ch~an -. '- ',--, TOWN OF QUEENSBURY -- --,,' PLANNING BOARD: Site Plan Review Richard Roberts, Chairman R.D. #1 Haviland Road Queensbury, New York 12801 Kenneth Sorlin, Acting Secretary 11 Crestwood Drive Queensbury, New York 12.801 TO: Walter Dombek RE: Site Plan #30-86 P.O. Box 649 mini-warehouse storage building Lake George, New York 12845 north of Midas Muffler on Quaker Rd. A TTN: DATE: January 21, 1987 We have reviewed the request for Site Plan Review (Type I-Type II) and have the following recommendation: ~ Approved _ Disapproved RESOL VED: Approved: Septic systems wm be 2 - 1,000 gal. holding tanks with electric alarm. Lighting will be 175 watt mercury vapor lights mounted on building. Plantings will be as per plan, including plantings along Meadowbrook. Notes: Lights shall be mounted on building below roof line. Existing poles shall be removed. Planting should be in accord with latest submission and agreements with Beautification Committee as presented at variance hearing. Sincerely, ~- / I I .' .... / ~. Jl. ~ wl.~ ~}. :BiLil--- Richard Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Town Planning Board RR/sed cc: Bob Stewart .. TO: Stuart Mesinger Queensbury Town Office Bldg. Bay ~ Haviland Roads Glen~' Falls, NY 12801 Centlemen/Ladies: '- '--... D.UE: ~. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD ~..~ Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518-761~10 ,. November 12, 1986 R~' Queensburv SPR 30-86 WALTER DOMBECK Meadowbrook Road Ae a ceecine of ehe ~arren Coune~ Planning Board. held on che 12th day of November the above ap?11cacion {or a site plan review to allow a mini arehouse storage faiclity consistin of four-20' x 100' and two-20' x 80' buildings on a parce e 1n Midas Muffler in a Highway Commercial-lS Zone. vas revicved. and the folloving act~on vas caken. Recoœœendation co: eX) Approve ( ) D1sapprovd (X) Kod1.f~ vith Conditions ( ) Return COtllllleA e: , ,. _. /- ./_' -". - - " , . - , . /~ ,...'. .' .,/- ~ ·,'ìj¿,/·· ",.-~; , - -------------~------~--~------------------------------------- Ie is ehe policr of ehe ~arreQ Coune~ Planni~g Board to follov the proceddures of the Mev York Seaee~eneral ~uQ1c1pal Lav. Seceion 239-H. v1th reeard to Municipal Zonina accions chac are referred co and reporeed thereon. !he follov1ne are . procedural require.ents thac ausebe adhered co: , ~ L>~ . ,~ z.) - ~.., . .. .. . ,\ \ ~~ rt\?\ ).) 1.) the Varren Counev Planniag loard shall repore ies recoamendat1ons co the referring .u~1c1pal agency. acco~p~n1ed by a full stateDent for . such aceions. . If no aceion is ta~en v1th1n th1rt~ (30) ¿ays or agreed upon t1ae. the .un1c1~al agencr ..~ ace v1chout such re~ort. If the recommendacton-i. fðr ~1sa~proval of ~~e pro~osal. or ~d1ficacior. thereof. ehe municipal agencr shall not ace conerary co such action excepe by a voce of . cajor1ty plus one of all the ae.bers ehereof ~n~ after ehe adoptlono! . resolueion full~ sect1~c forch t~e :e.so~S .or such contrar~ accions. t Y(ch1n .eYen (7) ~~r' after t~e :L~al ac:io~ ~r ehe Qur.1c1pal .,encr haying Jurisdlceion on che recOCDe~daetons. Q041Cl~ae1ons or d1..ppfo~al of . ,referred aac:er. .uch cunlc1;»aUc~ al,enc," shall Hle a upon "it~ che Varren Councy 'tanni~c !oard o~ the ~.c.ssary for~. oJ1/ (l ,,--, 1'JJ A (l./ 0i 't'" 7t.£#j Wyl a Hae·Bitner, Chairman hn McGilvray, Vice Chairman . . '---' , - . ..,. - TOWN OF QUEENSBURY Bay at Haviland Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-9725-518-792-5832 fILE CO~r~ April 25, 1989 NOTE TO FILE JOHN GORALSKI, PLANNER Application Number: Site Plan Review 23-89 Applicant/Project Name: Wesley Veysey The applicant proposes to construct a 960 sq. ft. office building at the corner of Dix Avenue and Park Avenue. The applicant has received all of the necessary area variances and should be considered in compliance with the ordinance. These variances will lapse in May if a building permit is not obtained. The development is consistent with the purpose of the zone and the character of the neighborhood. There should be little if any impact on public facilities and services. The access to the parking area has been kept as far away from the intersection as possible. This will help to alleviate any traffic problems in the area. Flood lights are indicated to light the parking area. These should be directed so that they do not shine onto the following properties. Rist-Frost Assoc. will review the stormwater management information and the septic information. There is a significant drop along the southerly property line. This appears to be on the adjoining lot. It would be in the applicants best interest to be sure the proposed berm and hedgerow will be sufficient to prevent erosion along the property line. JG/pw "HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY. . . A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE" SETTLED 1763 l I' ~ A1Sf.i' ASsociATES, PC cONsULTING ENGINEERS 21 BAY STREET ~ST OFFICE BOX 838 GLENS FALLS, NY 12801 518" 793·4141 "----' -./ ùWi'\ \0 ......... . ~..w . \ ~~~!J~] FILE copf~ PLANNING. ZONINC DEPARTMENT April 17,1989 RFA #89-5000 Ms. Lee York, Senior Planner Town of Queensbury Office Building Bay/Haviland Roads Queensbury, NY 12804 Ref: Wesley Veysey - Site Plan No. 23-89 Dear Ms. York: We have reviewed the above-referenced project; our comments are t hat a perc test must be done to show the bas i s for the sept i c system design and, in this area, to show that shallow bedrock is not a concern. Also the sewage application rate of 2 gal/SF/day shown is not correct. The system should be designed to the actual field measured percolation rate and in accordance with current (1988) DEC Standards. We have no other comments on this project. Very truly yours, RIST-FROST ASSOCIATES, P.C. .:( _._._-··1....· , Thomas W. Nace, P.E. Project Manager TWN:mg cc: Town P~anning Board Members e GLENS FALLS. NY, LACONIA NH . . ¡ '- PLANNING BOA./itf).'§,-:__, ~. "f! 1,'4 ' ... ." ~ I ~ ("'-..' ~""'" ;011; 18~~l ,. , :....)...J... ,... ;~ ,~ ~ WARREN COUNTY Warren County Municipal Center Lake George, New York 12845 Telephone 518·761·6410 ." ".t<'" ~~,.~- DATE: April 13, 1989 RE: Wesley Veysey TO: Queensbury Planning & Zoning Office Town Office Building Bay& Haviland Roads Que~nsbury, NY 12804 Gentlemen/Ladies: Southeaa intersection coner of Lower Dix & Park SPR II 23-89 At a meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, held on the 12th day of April , the above application for a site plan review for construction of a 960 sq. ft. general office building with on-site parking. was reviewed, ('XJ Approve ¿~ents: and the following action was taken. Recommendation to: ( ) Disapproval ) Modify with Conditions ( Return --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is the policy of the Warren County Planning Board to follow the procedures of the New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-~, with regard to Municipal Zoning actions that are referred to and reported thereon. The following are procedural requirements that must Le adhered to: 1.) The Warren County Planning Board shall report its recommendations to the referring municipal agency, accompanied by a full statement for such actions. If no action is taken within thirty (30) days or agreed upon time, the municipal agency may act without such report. 2.) If the reco~endation is for disapproval of the proposal, or modification thereof, the municipal agency shall not act contrary to such action except by a vote of a majority plus one of all the members thereof and after the adoption of a resolution fully setting forth the reasons for such contrary actions. 3.) Within seven (7) days after the final action by the municipal agency having jurisdiction on the recommendations, modifications or disapproval of a referred matter, such municipality agency shall file a. report with the Warren County Planning Board on the nèciss~~r,~or~1 I OR ' r, I, - / l ' Vincent Spitzer, Vice Chairman J~h~'Mc ~\ '--- ~ ..,WI' ... ~~!~ -~ r-- ,.J ~. ~.> ,,., .~: /,' .. . --------,,<' '" ...,...... -..".... ." :. .. . ~~ -- PLANNING a ZONING DEPARTMENT Apcil 19, 1989 ...,.... ~ 'I =- Mr. Richacd Roberts, Chairman Queensbury Town Office Bay & Haviland Road Queensbury, N.Y. 12804 ..~..'~- f ¡ "á08_ __i ¡ S~~r Mr. Roberts: Re: ~asley Veysey, No. 23-e9 The Glens Falls Independent Living Center would like to address the construction of the prcpo3ed 960 sq.ft. office building reg~,jing accessibility to th~ disabled from parking to interiQr. Ti:e IDdo::penüant L.iving C8f1t:¡:;;:: 'would li}.;.~ these ':hings r'len:: i.: ¡~ed in app C ov .:\1 . ~·ln(;\;::-elYI ~Ç?c (\ Hac'.. ey Raymo'1d Archi~~~tural 8acriec 2~n~11tant HR:nc Quaker Bay Center, Corner of Quaker & Boy, PO Box 453, Glens Foils, NY 12801, Voice (518) 7:)2-3537 TTY TOD (518) 792-3548 , "-. '-- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY'-" COMMITTEE FOR COMMUNITY BEAUTIFICATION .. "1 C t I L.. ;~ --/ : "" ....... - i Robert L. Eddy, Chairman 17 Owen Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ To: ( x) ( x) ( ) ( X) Warren County Planning Board Queensbury Town Planning Board Queensbury Town Zoning Board of Appeals APplicant Mrs. Arthur J. Seney, Secretary 8 Queensbury Avenue Queensbury, N. Y. 1280~ Date: 4/10/89 Re: Site Plan #23-89 Wesley Veysey Dix Avenue at Park Avenue We have reviewed the request for:( ) Variance, (x) Site Plan Review, ( ) Other - and have the fOllowing recommendations: (X) Approval ( ) Disapproval Planting plans were approved at the time of the application for a variance. No change was indicated by applicant. In addition to the above landscaping, screening and planting provisions, the Committee wishes to go on record that. it does not approve: 1. Non-conforming signs, 2. Plastic or artificial trees, shrubs or flowers. In approving the above (or attached plans), the Committee has the expressed or implied agreement of the applicant to replace immediately dead trees, shrubs or plants, and to give proper maintenance to all plantings. All rubbish containers or dumpsters shall be screened, all plantings shall be mulched and trees shall be retained or planted, as agreed. ,.. '-' '---' '\.. --< '- TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .- ----- Theodore Turner, Chairman 139 Meadowbrook Road Queensbury, New York 12801 Susan Goetz, Secretary 19 Win crest Drive Queensbury, New York 12801 TO: Walter Dombek DATE: January 23, 1987 P.O. Box 649 Lake George, NY 12845 RE: Area Variance No. 1172 Walter Dombek north of Midas Muffler on Quaker Road We have reviewed the request for X AREA VARIANCE USE VARIANCE SIGN VARIANCE OTHER and have the following recommendations: X Approved _ Disapproved RESOLVED: Approved: setback of 40 ft. from Meadowbrook Road in lieu of 50 ft. for Building A. This is a reasonable request. Practical difficulty is the water problem and a stream to the rear of the building. This opens more area in front for traffic flow and parking Sincerely, T~~h Theodore Turner, Chairman /V\ Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals TT /sed cc: Robert S. Stewart, Esq. ,