VMJR-Sept.
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Queensbury Planning Board
Staff Notes
September 16, 2008
APPLICATION: Site Plan 61-2007
Freshwater Wetlands 1-2008
APPLICANT/OWNER: VMJR Companies
REQUESTED ACTION: Site Plan and Freshwater Wetlands approvals
LOCATION: Rte 254 NW intersection at Quaker Ridge Blvd.
EXISTING ZONING: HC-Int
SEQRA STATUS: Type I
PARCEL HISTORY: UV 27-93, AV 34-93
PROJECT HISTORY: Property Rezoned from LI to HC-Int by Town Board in 2007.
1/15/08 Resolution passed seeking SEQR Lead Agency status.
2/19/08 Resolution passed acknowledging SEQR Lead Agency status
Public hearing held 1/15/08 Tabled to 3/18/08, TABLED to 4/29/08,
TABLED to 6/24/08, TABLED TO 7/15/08, Public Hearing LEFT
OPEN.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposed construction of 150,200 square foot retail
building with associated parking and utility. Project also includes
filling wetlands for parking and stormwater management facilities.
STAFF COMMENTS:
At the Planning Board’s 4/29/08 meeting, the application was tabled by resolution “
…..so that the applicant
can / will:
1. Satisfy the Staff Notes of April 29, 2008;
2. Satisfy the VISION Engineering comments of April 29, 2008;
3. Provide a revised lighting plan which is Code compliant;
4. Revise the landscaping plan to show the visual impacts on Quaker Road and that would
be with foliage and with defoliation, which would be a winter view, and also that should
be Code compliant using approved species;
SP 61-207/FW 1-2008 VMJR
April 29, 2008
5. Provide snow plans and contingencies for snow removal;
6. Provide a detailed soil list and identify delineation;
7. Provide an updated traffic plan for review and consideration, including a warrant
analysis; and
8. Contact the Water Department to identify if adequate sewer capacity exists.”
Staff notes are again broken out in specific response to the items noted in the Board resolution.
1) Satisfy the Staff Notes of April 29, 2008:
OUSTANDING STAFF COMMENTS:
a)Sheet X-2.1:
The responses provided in the applicant’s letter to Craig Brown of 6/13/08 indicates that:
a)The type, location and design details of the proposed ACOE wetlands mitigation are not
yet decided by the developer, and
b)If the ACOE mitigation is done by the creation of the additional proposed on site wetlands,
then clearing and grading will be necessary. Without the clearing and grading details, the
size and type of impact on existing wetlands of this site activity is unknown.
b)Sheet C-01:
Clearing Limits:
The cleared channels are back on the current set of plans.
o
If the thinning option is considered (as proposed in the applicant’s 6/13/08 response
o
letter), such activity may also be considered a “regulated activity” under Chapter 94 of
Town Code, and thus subject to wetlands permit and review. The Board should
decide which clearing option is preferred, so that necessary details may be provided
by the applicant as soon as possible.
Section 179-8-010(B) of Town Code states that “the developer/owner shall make every effort
to preserve and protect significant trees over eighteen inches in caliper.” The applicant has
still not shown individual trees at or above this size on any of the plans submitted. A note,
however, has been placed on Sheet C-1.1 stating that “all trees with a 18” or greater caliper
are to remain within areas outside the limits of proposed grading.”
The applicant should document NYS DOT agreement to and/or approval of the sidewalk
proposed along Quaker Road.
c)Sheet C-1:
The applicant has shown the reverse curve radii for the truck entrance movements.
Attachment 4 if the 6/13/08 response materials show the truck motions through these curves
may still include crossing into oncoming lanes, and may also cause trucks to hit the installed
curbs on both curves. Consideration should be given to altering the design at the truck
entrance to avoid these potential problems.
Will the fencing around the seasonal outdoor sales area be installed and removed annually?
The 6/13/08 narrative notes that fencing details are provided on Sheet D-1. No fence details
are shown on this sheet.
d)Sheet C-1.1:
The wetland proposed buffer line is not shown on the site plan sheets. Consequently, the
wetland buffer proposed data cannot be confirmed.
- 2 -
SP 61-207/FW 1-2008 VMJR
April 29, 2008
e)Sheet C-03:
In the 6/13/08 response letter, the applicant acknowledges that re-grading will be required for
the areas proposed for wetlands mitigation. If the mitigation is to be through wetlands
creation, the applicant must show the full design details (including grading) for these areas
prior to Planning Board approval.
The approximate area of bedrock to be removed is now shown on this sheet.
Where will the bedrock be moved to? If the material is to be moved off-site, how much
o
construction vehicle traffic will be generated by such activity? Is this traffic reflected in
the responses provided on the SEQR Long EAF?
The three-dimensional mapping of the bedrock provided in Attachment 6 is based on
o
over 32 on-site borings. Location and boring data are provided in the revised
submittal for only 5 of these borings sites.
f)Sheet C-4:
No planting details (plant type, location, and quantity have been submitted for the wetland
mitigation areas. If on-site wetlands creation is the proposed mitigation choice of the
applicant, these details must be provided prior to Planning Board approval.
g)Sheet C-5:
No lighting is noted on Sheets C-05, C-5 and C-5.1 for the proposed store sign at the
corner of Quaker Ridge Boulevard and Quaker Road.
See also comments under #3 below.
2. Satisfy the VISION Engineering comments of April 29, 2008;
See the latest engineering comments from Vision Engineering.
3. Provide a revised lighting plan which is Code compliant.
The applicant has provided both a compliant lighting plan, and an alternative preferred “Option
B” that uses fewer poles with heights exceeding the maximum height requirement (Section 179-
6-020). The uniformity ratios under “Option B” exceed the 4:1 requirement for both the building
entrances and building exterior (4.08:1 and 4.76:1, respectively).
Please note that Section 179-6-020(C) of the Zoning Code states that “
The Planning Board may
vary these standards, making them more or less restrictive, where it finds it to be in the interests
of this chapter and the Town to do so. In particular, the Town may vary the standards with
reference to the brightness and use of the surrounding environment.”
4. Revise the landscaping plan to show the visual impacts on Quaker Road and that would be with
foliage and with defoliation, which would be a winter view, and also that should be Code
compliant using approved species.
The landscaping plans have been revised to include code compliant species. The applicant will
be making a 3-D visual presentation at the next Planning Board meeting.
5. Provide snow plans and contingencies for snow removal;
- 3 -
SP 61-207/FW 1-2008 VMJR
April 29, 2008
Completed.
6. Provide a detailed soil list and identify delineation;
Completed. See revised sheet C-3.15
7. Provide an updated traffic plan for review and consideration, including a warrant analysis; and
See Attachment 2 of 6/13/08 response to staff comments.
8. Contact the Water Department to identify if adequate sewer capacity exists.
The Wastewater Department has confirmed that adequate sewer capacity exists. It is important
to note that a private easement between VMJR/Forest Enterprises and National Grid will be required in
order for the developer to connect to the Town force sewer main. See the attached email from Mike
Shaw.
The applicant has submitted a response dated August 15, 2008 to the concerns raised by Staff, the
Town Engineer and the members of the Planning Board. Upon review of the responses, the following
are of concern:
1.Top of page five-Please place statement concerning seasonal outdoor sales on plans.
2.Page six, number 3-The Planning Board must approve Option B concerning lighting as Option B
is not compliant with section 179-6-020.
The applicant appears to have satisfied remaining Staff notes with this response. Attached are Vision
Engineering comments.
Upon further review the following are of concern:
1.Landscaping and Lighting plan are not compatible as submitted. Please clarify and address
these issues. Please refer to Page C-04 and C-05.
2.The lighting plan appears to be missing lighting as compared with what is submitted on pages
C-04 and C-05.
L:\Stuart Baker\Planning Board\Staff Notes\7-15-08 Meeting\SP 61-07_VMJR_071508.doc
Revision Date: 7/11/2008 9:47 AM
L:\Keith Oborne\2008 Staff Notes\Planning\September 16\VMJR-Sept..doc
- 4 -