Loading...
2011.08.31 PB/ZBA (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) JOINT PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 31, 2011 INDEX DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY Queensbury Partners, LLC 1. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 Area Variance No. 61-2011 Queensbury Partners, LLC 8. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-23 through 35 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) JOINT PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 31, 2011 7:00 P.M. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY DONALD SIPP PAUL SCHONEWOLF THOMAS FORD DONALD KREBS STEPHEN TRAVER BRAD MAGOWAN, ALTERNATE ZONING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN BRIAN CLEMENTS JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN KOSKINAS, ALTERNATE ZONING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL ROY URRICO LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening everyone. I would like to welcome everyone to a joint meeting of the Town of Queensbury Planning & Zoning Boards. I’m Chris Hunsinger, Chairman of the Queensbury Planning Board, and this meeting this evening was really the result of some discussions that the Planning Board has had with the applicant, Queensbury Partners, LLC. There’s been a number of discussion items at the Planning Board meeting and we thought that it would be useful to have some sort of a workshop, joint workshop with the Zoning Board so that the Zoning Board could be brought up to speed with the thoughts and concepts that are behind this project. We also thought it would give the public another opportunity to see the concept reviews and the draft site plans and we just thought it would be better for the community in general to provide an additional forum for discussion of ideas in a somewhat more relaxed setting than an official planning or zoning meeting. Having said that, I understand that the Zoning Board, in order to be present here, has to have a formal meeting and there was a formal application filed with the Zoning Board and after the presentation from the applicant, Mr. Jackoski will open the Zoning Board meeting and the public hearing. So without any further comments or discussion, I’ll turn the floor over to the applicant, so you can provide a summary of the project, and update us on the revised plan. DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, FMBF OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION PARCELS ALONG BAY ROAD, GROUP ROAD & BLIND ROCK ROAD SITE PLAN: APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 43,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 188 RESIDENTIAL UNITS THROUGHOUT A MIXTURE OF TWO AND THREE STORY BUILDINGS. COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES IN AN OFFICE ZONE REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FRESHWATER WETLANDS: DISTURBANCE WITHIN 100 FEET OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE AV 61-11 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.07, 2.16, 1.92, 11.27, 6.71, 1.44, 1.21, 1.69, 1.28, 1.27, 1.27, 1.29, 1.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-0, CHAPTER 94 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FULLER-Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Board, Zoning Board. I think Mr. Hunsinger summed it up. We’ve been back before the Planning Board a few times working on sketch reviews. For the record, my name’s Matt Fuller. I’m an attorney with 1 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) Fitzgerald Morris Baker Firth, and I’m here with Dave Bogardus, the engineer on the project, and I have my clients here as well if you want to get questions or things like that, but what I thought I’d start off with is we’ve brought some of the original plans and the different versions, what we’ve gone through with the Planning Board. Some of the Planning Board members have said at some of the meetings, you know, we kind of embarked on a true planning on the project in partnership with the Planning Board to get some ideas of, you know, what the Planning Board was really looking for, as far as a village type idea for that corner, densities and things like that. So if I could, I’ll grab the mic. I’m going to address, I know we’ve got the sketch stuff; nothing has changed since we were before the Planning Board. We did file an application to the ZBA, just so that the ZBA could legally meet and discuss it, but I would expect some discussion items here, and we’ll, I don’t think we’ll have a decision or anything out of the ZBA because of referrals and things like that. So it’s really a discussion item. So if I could, I’ll grab the mic and start working through the plans. The first plan right here that I’m pointing to, and it’s all part, everything’s part of the record here, this was dated July 1 of 2010. What we did is, as everybody is probably surely aware of, the controversy and things that have gone on with this particular corner. What we did is when we set out on developing a plan for this piece, after the zoning was adopted, we went back and took the old minutes from all the meetings, Staff Notes, comments that were submitted, and went back to the drawing board and drew a project that is 100% zoning compliant. Meaning it would not have needed a single variance. It addressed all the comments, I mean, within reason. Some of the comments were just flat out opposed to it, but as far as setbacks, wetlands, density, the number of units, parking spaces, 100% compliant. So we wouldn’t have needed any variances to do this. We submitted that last summer, fall, got in, talked to the Planning Board about it, laid out what I just laid out to you, and politely the Planning Board said thank you for bringing us that zoning compliant project, but that isn’t exactly what we were hoping for. You can imagine that with the history our somewhat dismay, but that started off on a good conversation at that meeting of ideas that the Planning Board had, as far as, you know, a real traditional village type look. A little different density, maybe a corridor, a boulevard idea, you know, maybe some retail space, coffee shop, office, mixed apartments, potential for students to live there, walking, sidewalks, things like that, so we went back, took us a few months to get that accomplished, but, I apologize for my hand scribbles, but actually the hand scribbles that I’ve drawn on here were from the Planning Board meeting when we discussed the newer, the second version, I’ll call it, and you can see, still got the residential component out back, and I’ll, as I get to the final plan I’ll go through the entire proposal, but it’s still got the residential component, I say to the west of the property. Coming off of Blind Rock we’ve got a boulevard. The boulevard proceeds around to Bay Road, and a drive thru proposal, a bank, most likely, something like that. Right here, nearest to the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, again, working with Planning Board comments and suggestions, retail space and office space, covered patios, you know where you can have an outdoor type of a restaurant, those kinds of things. Right down in here, along Bay and Blind Rock, again, another one, right along the boulevard, and then to the south you’ll see three buildings here and some banked parking, and still to this day we’ll get to the plan, going to keep that as somewhat flexible space. So that if a large employer or somebody along those lines comes in, needs a big footprint, we’ll have the ability to accommodate that, and I think, you know, again, in working with the Planning Board as part of the drive of the density and sustaining development, you have to have people in order to sustain any sort of coffee shop, restaurant use, things like that, you’re going to have to have people. So, this space down in here was, and as we’ll get to the current plans, still is considered somewhat flexible. When we were at the Planning Board, discussing this plan, again, we tried to stay with the 75 foot setback along Bay. This building meets it. We would have been within it here at the corner of Blind Rock, basically right in here. The Planning Board said, you know, I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth, it’s all in the minutes, but we’d actually like to see you kind of draw this down a little bit closer to Bay. We really want to bring people in, slow down traffic in that area, make it more welcoming, make it more walk able for some of the neighborhoods that are in the area, and again, encourage, right here at the corner, where we are, the whole four corners here, more of a village atmosphere. So you can see various conversations we talked about sketching buildings in here, and I said here between Buildings One and Two on that old plan, pulling things down closer, a little circle, flagpole, something down on that corner. We did talk about a building in, I’ll say to the west of the boulevard, but there’s an Army Corps wetland there, and if it wasn’t there, and this even came up at the Planning Board meeting on the next plan that I’ll get to, you know, I think keeping that corridor idea, a building would be great there, but we don’t want to fill a wetland. We don’t want to go to the Army Corps. Certainly a possibility, but I think, you know, given how that permit process has become lately, it’s somewhat insurmountable, I think, for the project. So we have shied away from that. So this was the second phase, the Planning Board said, along with this, I’ll take a step back. One of the recommendations the Planning Board had was to hold a public meeting, on our time, outside of the Planning Board, not an official Town sanctioned event. So we rented out this room right here. I myself mailed out notices; I took the tax maps off the Warren County GIS and mailed out similar letters to what you guys send out, but I bumped it to 1500 feet. So instead of 500, I bumped it to 15, and mailed those all out. We did that in May. It was May 21st, a Saturday. Had some people here, had some good comments, good recommendations. We 2 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) did take a couple of them in. I can’t remember where they were at this point, but met for about an hour, might have had 15 people or so, went through the project, pros and cons, what you don’t like. I had gotten some e-mails beforehand from some neighbors, basically asking about the forested areas to the west and south on the property, and that’s all wetland. We’re not; we will not be filling or invading any wetlands. There’s no, there’s a wetland setback that’s part of the variances that we’ll get into, but we’re not going to be in any wetland. They’ll be preserved. Now we’ll get to where we are tonight. Okay. So there’s a couple of plans, and we’ve kind of put the better two up, the color, but I also had the black and white plan that we submitted to you that we can talk about as well. It’s got the actual setbacks and things on it. This one, it’s flipped, Bay and Blind Rock, the project here, Bay and Blind Rock, the project here, but we, again, the Planning Board suggested we superimpose the plan on the photo, aerial photo, just to give you an idea, a perspective of where the buildings are, right at the corner. So you can see that. All the setbacks here, the 300 foot residential, 75 foot building setback along Bay, 25 feet along the property lines, similar 75 foot along Blind Rock. I’ll turn to this color. Similar, the back of the property, buildings seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, and thirteen. The residential component remains. We’ve got a pool and a cabana out back, maintenance building off of Blind Rock. There is, you’ll see there’s an emergency, another access down Blind Rock. That’s going to be like a white, we propose it to be a white gate, locked, but the fire department, EMS will have a Knox box key for that. So that won’t be a permanent, every day ingress/egress. The ingress/egress to and from the site is right across from Hunterbrook Lane and down Bay, to the south of the property. Again, we’ve got the boulevard, parking on both sides of the boulevard. Our idea for the boulevard is really based on this photo. Lights, plantings, sidewalks surrounding, units to the west, right along here. That’s where, if you look at this photo, and I think the comment came from the Planning Board, certainly if we could do it, a building sitting there would even more fit within this type of an idea, but again, the wetland, we just don’t want to invade that wetland. So we’ve got parking along the boulevard, one way on each side. We have drawn this building, right at the corner of Bay and Blind Rock, down closer to the intersection, clearly within the setback, no question. That’s one of the variances that’s on the list. These are the photo ideas for this type of building. We’ll talk about the buildings for a second. Originally we had come in with the idea for a two story, and in working with the Planning Board, that’s kind of evolved a bit, too, to start really with at the intersection there with two story, but then with the back commercial buildings probably go to three, to create village, again, village perspective, drawn in, slow people down, get them to stop in. So that’s, and again, that was part of the good conversation that we’ve been having with the Planning Board on that. This is the type of architecture we’re looking at, not simply sided buildings slapped up and ready to go. They’ll have the nice architectural treatments around the windows. Different, on the residential units, a mix of, it will have siding on it, obviously, but a mix of, you know, brick looks, wood. We had talked about scallops. Well, we’ll get into that. That has yet to be really fleshed out in the site plan, but, you know, kind of breaks it up, again, more of a village idea, not just straight uniformed colored buildings. Those are what the building will really look like. Again, corner building, enclosed patio, patio all around, little flag area here, building number two, similar to that architecture, you know, entrances along the boulevard and along the parking lot. The bank building we moved flipped the parking basically to, again, pull that closer to Bay Road, and that, again, was working with a comment from the Planning Board of trying to, the idea being not to set that property apart itself. Because we certainly could do that. We can meet the setbacks, push everything back, but then this project would just standalone. If you’re looking to encourage development on the other side of the street or re-development in the area, bring it closer, it gets warmer, it gets people to slow down, invites people on to the property, versus being set back 75, 100 feet from Bay Road. It’s just a pass by. So that, I think, was the idea, at least, that we had talked about. The ingress/egress from the bank would be in off of here and then out into the parking area, so that we’re not stacking or backing up in the parking area or on the road there. A little word about the roads. This will be an entirely single owned development. You’ll note in the prior plans, I took them down, but there were subdivided lots right along Bay. As part of our application for site plan to the Planning Board, we’ll go back in for a subdivision modification to eliminate those lots. The roads, infrastructure, buildings, will be privately owned. So it won’t be a Town highway for maintenance or anything like that. Water, sewer, electric, gas, my clients actually have run the sewer line to this property, before the prior controversy slammed the brakes on any development on the piece. So the sewer line is there, I know that the Town and some of the developments have been able to connect to that, but the sewer’s there, paid for, installed. All the utilities we’ll have on site. Let’s hit quick on the variances. All right. Just talk quickly on the variances. We’ve identified, I’ve met with Keith and Craig, and we’ve kind of identified where we see the variances right now. The 300, probably the most controversial certainly has been that setback from Bay, the 300 foot residential setback from Bay, the one building here on the front is about 30 feet off of Bay. So that certainly is well within that setback, and the building, that’s building number one. Building Number Two. Three isn’t going to be a problem because it’s just, again, a single use bank type of building. Depending on the flex space, you know, what’s proposed and who comes in, they might be within that setback, so we’ve just put them in and proposed them that way. Again, for SEQRA and purposes like that, show the most density, show the most variances so that SEQRA is done 3 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) properly. We certainly don’t want to mess that up. The 75 foot setback along Bay, there’s an absolute no building setback. It’s an area setback, but that will be encroached by building three and building one, and the same is true along Blind Rock, 75 feet, we’re going to encroach on that in a few spots. The residential buildings just, I’ll flip to this right here, building number eleven is barely in. It’s, 75’s required, 57 and a half feet there, 69, 81, that’s okay. So you’ve got to; we’ll have a couple of setbacks there. Yes, 75 feet along Bay and Blind Rock, and 75 on the shoreline. The greenish line here is the shoreline setback. Again, we’re not invading the wetland, but with the plan, we will be within that shoreline setback in spots, that’s on Building Eight, Nine, Ten, Thirteen, and the cabana house for the pool, and the structure heights. With moving into heights like this, the maximum height is 40 feet. We’re going to be over that. We’ll be at 42 with some of the structures along the front, and 53 if we hit a third story, again, sticking with that architecture, not a flat roof, more of a gabled. Did I miss anything, Keith? MR. OBORNE-Yes, you missed density. MR. FULLER-The density. One of the bigger ones. We will be over on the density. Again, that’s in standing with the overall development plan that we put in, and if we were, it is a density request; there will be a density variance request. It would certainly be higher if we were able to accommodate some of the comments we’ve gotten and added two buildings, but we will be over on density as well. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Is it possible, I don’t know the protocol. Can people ask questions? MR. HUNSINGER-You’ll have an opportunity later. Thank you. MR. FULLER-Creating the foot traffic and the number of people on the property with the second and third stories are going to bump that density regardless. Now cutting down buildings and things to, again, achieve the traffic that’s going to be necessary to sustain the commercial components out here just starts to not work. So when we get into the second and third stories, those densities are going up. MR. OBORNE-But if I could expand on that, specifically to the Zoning Board, what is happening is you have 174 residential units allowed per the density of this lot. They’re proposing 188. So that’s one of the densities for the residential. MR. FULLER-Right and that includes the flex buildings down here. So again, we’ve asked for the maximum build out that we could see here, not knowing that that would be the actual density when we get to the final plan. Again, because these are going to be flexible. Somebody could come in and say, you know, we need a two story office. We’ll take that. That would be great, but again, could they build it? Yes, they could. Somebody could come in and say, you know, we need three or four offices, and on first floor only and break this up, and then the second floor could end up units. So that’s why we’ve put that in, and again, as far as the architecture and thing goes, all through the boulevard here is going to be the similar break up of that architecture. AUDIENCE MEMBER-But the effective density is greater than the mathematical density. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could, sir, could you hold comment until the public hearing portion, please. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Well, I heard another gentleman. MR. JACKOSKI-He is the applicant, sir; the other gentleman is the applicant. MR. KREBS-But, Matt, I think we should comment, too, that when we had that discussion and we went from two to three floors, we did that because a three floor building is much greener than a two story building, and we all are worried about conserving energy, etc., a three story building is much more energy efficient than a two story building. MR. FULLER-I’ll sit down and answer questions. MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Matt, which of the buildings would be three stories, just the ones on the forefront? MR. FULLER-Yes. One, Two, did we say four? Buildings Number One, Two, Three won’t be, that’s the bank out front, and then this one, these three. One, Two, and Four. Three, again, stays as your bank. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m sorry, could you repeat that question? 4 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) MR. FULLER-The question was how many buildings will be three story, and I answered One, Two, and Four. Those are the building numbers on the plan. Three in total, not seven. MR. JACKOSKI-Matt, question for you. On the application it says it is assumed all the buildings three and six will require relief. Does that include Building Five? Does that mean Building Five is going to be three story? MR. FULLER-I don’t, this is the closest to the southern boundary. I don’t believe we had that as three. We do? I’m sorry, Four and Five. One, Two, Four, and Five. The front most buildings. He answered correctly. I answered it wrong. One, Two, Four, and Five are the buildings that are proposed at three, but not all of one. I should note that, too. At the corner, we’re still working with the Planning Board on what the corner would look like, as far as three stories right at the corner, or two and then up to three, as you come back, again, creating depth. We’ll have architectural drawings when we get into the full site plan, but that’s correct. Building One, what we had discussed with the Planning Board as right at the part along Bay and Blind Rock there, that’s parallel to Blind Rock, would be two, and then the part that’s parallel to Bay would be three. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions, comments from members of the Boards? Yes, go ahead. MR. UNDERWOOD-Was there a mindset on the part of the Planning Board, because it’s quite a departure from what we’ve built in the Bay Road corridor so far, and I just wonder, is this something that will presume that other people will come in and want to do the same thing throughout the Bay Road corridor that’s remaining, you know, as far as open space? I know we have Valente’s down there with the professional park and that has specific guidelines for that one also, but would we be looking at a modification of other plans within that? MR. HUNSINGER-We didn’t anticipate that, to be quite honest. Part of our thought process came from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which talked about creating density, creating, well, the applicant has used the term village, you know a village feel. The Comprehensive Plan talks about a center, you know, a Town center, and actually that concept goes back two or three plans, not just the most current Comprehensive Land Use Plan. It’s probably one of the largest remaining commercial properties on Bay Road, and we just saw a unique opportunity to try and do something different. We had encouraged a mixed use development over here on, the project north of Waverly Place, kind of diagonally across the street on Havilland, and after several years of the applicant not finding a market for mixed use development, they came back with basically a townhouse concept. So I think, you know, that becoming a townhouse kind of created more of an opportunity for this to become more of a neighborhood center or, you know, a Town center if you will. So, I mean, that was a lot of the thought process. Also discussions with SUNY Adirondack for dorms. The student traffic, the need for additional services as a result of the dorms that may be built, you know, was just all part of the thought process the Planning Board discussion. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve noticed the one south of Clifton Park, between there and Colonie and Route 9, there’s one that’s very similar to this down there, that’s already in the process of being built, you know, it’s almost a dead ringer for what you’re doing here, and I don’t know if anybody’s had the opportunity to drive down that way and look at it, but you get a better sense of what it might look like, you know. It’s just right off of Route 9. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we also had a discussion about some of the development that’s happening up off of Meadowbrook and Havilland there, and, you know there’s a lot of townhouse development going in. There was, part of it, a former approval was for a commercial center there, which has gone nowhere. The residential properties have been built out, but the commercial entities have never materialized, and so, again, because this is a unique property, and there is so much residential development around it, we thought that there was a unique opportunity to put some commercial development and develop that Town center feel. MR. KOSKINAS-I have a couple of questions. Relative to the photograph you showed, the lovely illustration of those buildings, what’s the orientation of the buildings, particularly those on Bay Road, relative to the photograph, and specifically I’m interested in the entrances. Are the entrances accessible from Bay Road, or do you have to drive in to the parking lot to get to them? Pedestrians can’t walk to those buildings. Is that correct? MR. FULLER-I’m not clear. MR. KOSKINAS-If I’ve confused you, I’ll try again. The photograph you had, relative to the architecture of the buildings. MR. FULLER-These right here? 5 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. What’s the orientation, very attractive architecture. Is that the Bay Road facing façade, take the red building for example. Is that the Bay Road facing façade that’s on the other side of this parking lot, say Building Number Two? MR. FULLER-I think what we’ve talked about with the Planning Board is that the red building, if you will, being the flagship on the corner. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. Then I would be standing in front of your building facing north, is that right? MR. FULLER-You would be, if you’re looking at this, almost this facing west. This building would line right up with this orientation right here. You could say Blind Rock would be right here down the side of this building. MR. KOSKINAS-So on your colored map, where are the entrances that are on that picture? MR. FULLER-Entrances to the building? MR. KOSKINAS-Yes. MR. FULLER-Both sides. Here, if you look at along the boulevard here, the gray areas on all these plans are sidewalks. Something I didn’t touch on. MR. KOSKINAS-Okay. So the patio that’s to the north of Building One is an entrance way? MR. FULLER-Sidewalk area, yes, doors. Similar to that structure right there. MR. KOSKINAS-I thought that might be the case and it makes me ask, and actually I’d like some understanding from the Planning Board. It makes me ask, when you look at the Comprehensive Plan and you look at our zoning, particularly when you look at 179-3-050, Travel Corridor Overlays, and particularly the Travel Corridor Overlay from Bay Road, which is supposed to be left as open space, and the entrances are not facing Bay, where’s the rationale for bringing it closer to the street? I like the idea of folksy, you know, come on in, but the entrances don’t face Bay, so all you’re seeing the side of the building closer to the street, and a Travel Corridor Overlay that, if I read the zoning correctly, and I probably don’t, but if I did read it correctly, it would say that the sentence begins, in order to maintain the rural character along these roadways. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Matt looks like he wants to answer that one, because we had a long discussion about that. I think it was the first or second workshop. Did you want to answer that question? MR. FULLER-Yes. First, just to pick up on a clarification. There’s entrances on both sides, and the front, not singularly along Bay. So you can access them, honestly I think you would envision if there’s a restaurant that ends up down here, you can enter through there and having seating and things along that corridor. So that’s kind of the idea we ended up with the Planning Board. The other part, you know, and the sidewalks, again, all the gray area the sidewalks wrap entirely around the property. Our hope is, to be honest with you, and we’ve talked about this with the Planning Board, that the Town, in general, Town Board kind of buys in, because you get sidewalks and things going through here, and it does get pedestrian friendly. People can walk to this site. He’s talking about the buildings here in Bay and where the entrances are. Again, entrances on both sides, making it so that you can walk into it. MR. KOSKINAS-If your map is to scale, though, it looks to me like your building is eight feet over the 75 foot and with the patio some 24 feet, and it looks to me like it could be done. We could easily do that without a variance, and have the effect that you want. MR. FULLER-Well, I think, getting now back to the answer where you were heading, the reason to draw it closer actually didn’t come from us. It came through the discussions that we were having with the Planning Board to, again, create that more of a village feel. If you set these buildings back, which we can do, you’re right, we could push them back, this project’s just going to stand on its own. It’s not going to become more of a center that you’re looking for. Just visually, and I think of it when you go down Bay further, and that’s what we were trying to avoid was the, I’ll say it the east side of Bay as you get down where the professional office is, the medical offices and things are down there. That’s not, clearly not where the Planning Board wanted to go, and I think we agree with them. The buildings all look the same. It’s become somewhat homogenous, and it’s a development unto itself. Nobody’s walking to or from it. That intersection’s kind of getting a little bit crazy, but I was there yesterday. It’s an in and out drive type of feel. What we wanted to do here is create, again, more of that Town center feel, 6 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) sidewalks, bring it closer, slow it down, more of a, again, a village center type feel, and you’re right, it pulls the buildings in closer to create that feel, versus being off, off on its own, like some of the other developments down Bay, and somebody asked the question about other properties and things like that. Each project sets on its own. We’ve looked down Bay. You’re right. The Valente property I think is the last big one heading down that direction, and I think, as a Planning Board kind of sends us off in that direction, too, it is unique, with the Town Hall right here, development across the street. This piece right here to create this center where we headed, working with the Planning Board, is that uniqueness I think getting back into the Comprehensive Plan as referenced. MR. JACKOSKI-Matt, what percentage of the parcel is going to stay undisturbed? MR. FULLER-We’ve got that. Where’s my spec sheet? The total land area is 34 acres. The total impermeable surface area is 10.455. So it’s roughly two-thirds. Actually, the numbers are in the variance application, but they’re going to change a little bit as we get into site plan. It’s about 35/65 is the split right now. MR. JACKOSKI-Has there been any discussion about actually having patios at that main intersection as it relates to safety and accidents and that kind of stuff happening in that corner. MR. FULLER-Well, part of what we’ve discussed, you know, when we get into traffic and things like that, those are things we have to look at. I think it’s set back far enough, but certainly those are comments that we’ll have to look at. MR. KREBS-And, Steve, part of the problem is we’re going to have to work with the County, because both of these roads are County roads, not Town roads. So we really don’t have any control over that. MR. FULLER-And we’ve already started, we’re working on that right now. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the parking, I notice on a lot of the noncommercial buildings you’ve got parking included in those. Is there indoor parking? MR. FULLER-There’s garages for every unit. MR. UNDERWOOD-There are, but those are just at ground level, they’re not underground? MR. FULLER-They were all at grade. Yes. The building north of Bay and Blind Rock, we scaled that off at roughly 48, 50, the church. BOB MANZ MR. MANZ-The closest point is about 60 feet to the edge of the road. Our building is about 60 feet. It’s about the same distance. MR. FULLER-From the edge. MR. MANZ-Bob Manz. I was just trying to give you a perspective on this map of the distance of the existing building across the street off the road in relation to what the corner building setback would be, and they’re within one or two feet of each other. MR. FULLER-Yes, actually that was a recommendation that came out of the last Planning Board, to superimpose the aerial with the lot lines and the building locations to give that perspective of, because we were looking at it on the plan. It’s easy to look at it here, but I think you’ve got to look at it with the perspective of across the street. I’m pointing to Building One, you know, where it is in relation to that corner. MR. JACKOSKI-Is the banked parking part of the proposed bays per the plan, is that number already in the proposed bays, or is that in addition to the proposed bays? MR. FULLER-It’s included. That’s our overall number. It’s shown because we’ve got the ability for all of the parking. Obviously, we would prefer to not build that much. MR. MANZ-The Code requires 563. We’ve got 608 on the plan, 41 of those are banked. MR. JACKOSKI-Forty-one of those six hundred and eight are banked. Okay. Thank you. MR. FULLER-I did that on another project working with the Planning Board. I think it works pretty well. It’s a good idea, you know, instead of just building the impervious surface right out of 7 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) the gate, wait to see if you need it. Show that you can comply, but don’t build it if you don’t need it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would it be phased in, all the construction, you’re not going to build everything at the same time, obviously. MR. FULLER-Yes, phased in the traditional sense of one, two, three four? No. The idea would be start with a flagship. Get the main building going at the corner, start with the residential units because they’re going to drive the support for that initial building, and then move out, but obviously if somebody comes along and, again, an office needs this much space or whatever, we’re (lost word) to that potential, and I think the bank might go sooner rather than later. MR. MANZ-But again, as we’ve talked all along, really, if you want to talk about a phased project, this, in our mind, is phase two. This would be initiated, and then this would be left for later development. That’s why it’s being left as flexible. MR. HUNSINGER-Did we want to talk about, just since we have both Boards here, Keith, did we want to talk about the review process and how it would commence this evening, and then what the next steps would be, before we start to hear public comment? MR. OBORNE-Yes, as far as this evening is concerned, obviously the Chairman will open up the public hearing for the public and we will table this to a date pending a formal submission to the Planning Board. With that, you’ll most likely see a recommendation first from the Planning Board, and then it’ll be in the Zoning Board’s lap. What is going on tonight, again, is an imparting of information. No, we’re not asking you to do SEQRA. We’re not asking you to make any decisions tonight. It’s just dissemination of information at this point. Does that answer? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I just wanted to make sure the members of the audience and members of the Board understood sort of the process. From the Planning Board’s perspective, this is just a workshop. We do not have an application yet. Even though a meeting was warned, it was really warned for the Zoning Board, but we felt strongly that there’d be an opportunity for public comment and also, you know, comments and discussions from both Boards. The Planning Board will not be taking any action this evening because there’s nothing for us to take action on. We frequently have discussion items at our meeting where we have a discussion like we’ve had this evening about concepts and different issues with a project before the applicant then files an application. MR. OBORNE-Yes, and to piggyback on what Chris is saying, you know, the Zoning Board is an appellate Board and you can only sit if you have an application in front of you. Hence why the application was put before you, so you can legally sit. MR. HUNSINGER-But I guess before the Zoning Board formally comes under order and opens the public hearing, I did want to thank the Zoning Board because this was something that the Planning Board felt strongly about. We know it’s a little unusual to have this kind of a meeting. We know it created some issues in terms of under what protocol do we hold the meeting and how do we host it, but we felt that it was good for the public discourse on the project to have a workshop where we weren’t encumbered by specific rules and regulations of an application that’s before us. So I did want to extend that thank you to the Zoning Board for agreeing to hold the meeting. Again, the Planning Board felt that it would behoove both Boards to get together and maybe in the future we’ll do other similar workshops for other projects or items that are of joint interest. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY SEQR TYPE I QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC AGENT(S) MATTHEW FULLER, FMBF OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING O-OFFICE LOCATION PARCELS ALONG BAY ROAD, GROUP ROAD, & BLIND ROCK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 43,000 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 188 RESIDENTIAL UNITS THROUGHOUT A MIXTURE OF TWO AND THREE STORY BUILDINGS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACKS, DENSITY, AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE O-OFFICE DISTRICT AND THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE. CROSS REFERENCE SP 62-2011, FW 6-2011 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.07, 2.16, 1.92, 11.27, 6.71, 1.44, 1.21, 1.69, 1.28, 1.27, 1.27, 1.29, 1.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-23 THROUGH 35 SECTION 179-3- 040, 179-4-030 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 8 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, Chairman Hunsinger. We, too, think that this is a great opportunity, and I like seeing these two Boards working more hand in hand, especially on large scale projects like this. So thank you for presenting this opportunity to us. We appreciate it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-This evening I think Mr. Hunsinger did, in fact, open the joint meeting. So we are, the Zoning Board of Appeals is open this evening, and I’d like to, at this time, open the public hearing portion of the meeting, and usually Roy reads into the record our written comments. Do we have any written comments at this time for the record? MR. OBORNE-I do have some written comments if you’d care for me to read them into the record, I have no issue with that whatsoever. MR. JACKOSKI-I think I’d like to actually read those in first, if we could. MR. OBORNE-Fine. Would you like me to read it, or would you like to? MR. JACKOSKI-No, I’d be more than happy to allow you to. MR. OBORNE-Thank you, sir. Again, this is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board joint meeting. Today is August 31, 2011 “The purpose of this joint meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board is for the dissemination of information, impart potential associated impacts, and to gather the views and opinions of Zoning Board members on the project potentially known as Fowler Square. Neither the Zoning Board nor Planning Board are asked to render any decisions on this matter tonight and can anticipate a formal application in the near future based on feedback from this meeting.” What I have sent previously were electronic, condensed versions of the Planning Board minutes with the discussions on this, and before you are hard copies of those condensed versions. If you wish to see the whole, multi-page discussions with the Planning Board and the applicant on this application, by all means, access the Town website. That would certainly help. If, in fact, you want hard copies of those, I’d be more than happy to provide you with those also, at request. Again, the applicant appeared before the Planning Board on September 30, 2010, April 16, 2011 and August 2, 2011 to discuss the project conceptually. And that also talked about the public discussion of the project here on May 21, 2011 and did garner public input which, again, is driving what’s going on here. So basically we’re at the corner of Blind and Bay Road. I think everybody knows that. What’s attached to this are variances. I don’t know if we need to necessarily go through those. Would you like me to go through the variances per se, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-I don’t think it’s necessary at this time. Does anyone else feel that way? I mean, this is a global review of this project. MR. OBORNE-It’s going to change, but what I will say is I’ll just do the quick project description and I’ll turn it over to the Board. The applicant proposes, in this iteration, a total of 42,980 square feet of commercial development distributed between four buildings and 188 residential units distributed between 11 buildings to include residential units within three of the proposed commercial structures. The fourth commercial structure proposed is a 1,800 square foot bank and an additional structure to be an 800 square foot maintenance building. And with that I’d turn it over to the Zoning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and just for the record, this is Area Variance No. 61-2011. Discussion Item Only. So, fellow Board members, we’ve had an opportunity to discuss a little bit. Do you want to open the public hearing officially now and have public comment and the continue forward? Okay. So was there any written comment for the record, Keith? MR. OBORNE-There are no written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No written comments this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address the Board? If you wouldn’t mind please coming to the table, state your name, for the record, please, and just to remind you for protocol, we generally have about three to five minutes of discussion, if you don’t mind. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED OLIVER NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Oliver Nichols, 12 St. Andrews Drive, Queensbury. Question first, and then maybe a comment depending upon the answer. In the expression of density in the Ordinance, 9 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) is the denominator that’s used the gross acreage, or is it netted down to a count, you know, sites vary. Some are dry, some are partially wet. This has a lot of water on it, so the effective density, before you do anything, is going to be higher than if it was completely dry. How does that work in the Ordinance? MR. UNDERWOOD-Usually you have to subtract slopes and wet areas from your allowance. So it can only be the actual buildable property. MR. NICHOLS-So you net the water out and. MR. OBORNE-And that water, slope, and impervious surfaces such as outcrops, rock outcrops, obviously. MR. NICHOLS-So the denominator in the density calculation becomes only usable acreage. Okay. MR. KREBS-In this particular case, just so you know the numbers, the land area is 34 acres. The wetlands are 10.55 acres and the area of slope is 1.28 acres. So that, out of the 34 acres you started out with, you end up with buildable acres of 21. MR. NICHOLS-Okay, and that is the number that becomes the denominator for the density calculation. Okay. Thank you. I guess, is it Matt? Obviously density and parking ratios or adequacy of parking for each part of a development are related tightly together, but I didn’t hear anything about ratios for each portion of the development and what are considered appropriate, and I guess I’ll just leave, my last thing is since this is all spec, as I understand it, is there a requirement to demonstrate evidence of demand to fill the buildings, and just another comment is that not only the third floor of, is that an office building, the one with the third floor that used to be two? MR. KREBS-Mixed use. MR. NICHOLS-Okay. I don’t know if there’s a market for that. I’m not aware of other buildings that have leased that way, but you want them to at least make money, obviously, but the density is further constrained by the creation of a boulevard obviously that needs to be, I don’t think there’s parking along that. Well, maybe there is tandem parking, but that is, put a further constraint on it. That’s about all I’ve got right now. MR. KREBS-Just a comment. If you look at Glens Falls, for example, Scoville Jewelers is on the first floor actually in that particular case Chris Scoville lives on the second floor. So you have that mixed use, and that’s what we were kind of looking at here is that with the school across the street, with SUNY New York, you could have students. You could have college professors, you could have professionals living in the building, and on the first floor have retail like a barber shop, a hairdresser, a coffee shop, just to give you an example of what we were thinking about. MR. NICHOLS-Yes, I don’t know if it’s the function of these Boards to assess whether there’s demand for all those categories of space or not. MR. KREBS-That’s really up to the developer. MR. NICHOLS-Right, and also whether he wants to get into student housing, which is another ball of wax. Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else, this evening, who would like to address the Board? Sir, if you wouldn’t mind coming to the table. BOB SHARPE DR. SHARPE-Hi, my name is Bob Sharpe. My wife and I happened to visit this development, it’s outside Charlotte in Huntsville, North Carolina this summer and it’s a wonderful little development. It’s beautiful, and it’s busy all the time. It was over the Fourth of July weekend, so that was part of it, but it is a beautiful development. It’s probably a half mile long. It has two traffic circles throughout the length of the boulevard and lots of activity. There was parking along the boulevard as you can see on the picture on the right. The difference is, between that and the proposal, one of the differences, is this development was not visible, for the most part, from the main road, and it was set back probably 200 feet. Even the entrance was not visible. It was well treed and there was parking and so you didn’t really see the development, whereas this is, you know, right on Bay Road essentially. So those were a couple of differences, but it was a beautiful concept and it seemed to work down there. My major concern, I think, is the 10 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) intersection here. I think Building One is awfully close to the intersection. As a lot of you know there’s a bottleneck there during rush hour it’s a real problem. People coming this way from Blind Rock cannot make a left turn, and it backs up well beyond Hunterbrook, the first entrance there, sometimes as far back as the second entrance to Hunterbrook, and so I think there needs to be something addressed there. I mean, I think a roundabout would work perfectly, seeing how well the one in Glens Falls works, but once a building is encroached on the intersection, I think they said it was 30 feet off Bay Road, which is awfully close, you can no longer do anything with that intersection. So I think that’s something that needs to be addressed. We have a building across the street, and we were required to set back 75 feet from the lot line which essentially is 100 feet from the center of the road, and I think the concept was the Bay Road corridor was to have green space all the way down through and not have buildings encroaching on the road is my thinking from years past. So this is a dramatic turnaround from that thinking, but I think at that intersection, and you’re coming down on Blind Rock as we’re looking at this, there needs to be a right turn lane. There needs to be a left turn lane and a through lane. There needs to be three lanes there, or a right turn cutoff. The meeting we had on Saturday morning back in May, someone had suggested having a right turn lane that started well back by the Hunterbrook exit there and ran that whole distance along Building One, just to allow for back up of traffic and take some of the load off the intersection, but those are my thoughts, but it’s a beautiful plan, what we saw was very nice. As we see there, the buildings are gorgeous. Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else this evening who would like to address these Boards concerning this project? Marilyn. MARILYN VAN DYKE MRS. VAN DYKE-Good evening. My name is Marilyn VanDyke, and I’m the Historian for the Town of Queensbury, and I’m very happy to look at this new concept of some sort of a community center for Queensbury because we’ve never really had a center. I also was pleased that when we presented our information at the last meeting about the fact that the property itself was originally the Fowler farm, that they’ve decided to incorporate the idea of the name Fowler into Fowler’s square. I think that meets a lot of favorable thought from a historical perspective, but the other thing I wanted to speak about is that at the present time I live and work here on this corner, on this building, and the building in back, and I don’t know how many other people come here to work in this building, but there’s a significant number of government workers who have to get in and out of these buildings every single day that the government is functioning, and it’s extremely difficult, when you’re coming down Bay Road or up Bay Road, to get into this property right here and get out of it, you have to be very, very careful, and when you come, I come from the north down through, and when I get down, I don’t come all the way down to the traffic light, I take the first turn to the left that you can make into the Town office buildings, and that also can be very dangerous because people yank around the corner and come at you and you have to have to watch who’s going to turn or not turn, and it’s a very, very dangerous intersection right now, and we’ve had a lot of different accidents in that area because of the way it’s designed and the way the traffic pattern goes in and out of the Town office complex, and I think that that’s something that you need to take a really hard look at before you complete this whole idea, which is a nice idea in and of itself, but we just have that traffic to be really concerned about. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Strough. JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough, Queensbury. Well, this isn’t what I would envision here but let’s make lemonade. It’s not the Bay Road corridor, and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan talks about campus and office campus concept. All right. This doesn’t quite go there, but it’s still an interesting project, and it looks like this is the direction it’s going to go in, okay, but let’s try and make it better than what it’s presented as. Over and over again in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan we talk about the presentation of the development of the architecture to the pedestrian street view. What we’re seeing here are the roads and parked cars and parking lots. I think the building, and they look like beautiful buildings, they should be making the presentation to the passerby. The parked cars in the parking lots should be out of view, not only that, but if some of this is going to be commercial, you know, pizzeria, a newsroom, a coffee shop, whatever, their presentation street side would be more effective than being set behind parked cars and you’re viable over here, which could be commercial, you know, and I know none of this is fixed, and that’s why I’m speaking now. The orientation I think should be towards the street and I think a much nicer street view, and can it be done, it sure can. If you go down on Route 9 to take a look at the multi project, which is a mixed use, lower floor commercial, upper floors, whatever, very similar architecture, very attractive, but again, the buildings are what presents the view, are 11 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) what, you know, so I think that rearrangement could be done here to make a much nicer looking project, rather than pavement and cars. Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mr. Strough. Is there anyone else this evening? Yes, sir. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-Good evening. My name is Mike Wild. I live at 11 Blackberry Lane. Not too far from here, and I’ve been in front of these Boards a few times in the last few months. My first comment is in relationship to the notification of land owners, and I know that the Code and the law states that there’s a 500 foot radius in which you notify people and counsel went as far as going 1500 feet, but knowing this area like I am, I don’t think he added to many more people to the list in 1500 feet, and I’m not sure how far beyond I am, but if you guys know where Blackberry Lane is, it’s just down Blind Rock a little ways, and there’s substantial traffic here, and everybody will talk about traffic, and I’m going to mention about a request for a traffic study. I think it makes sense, but I think you also need to expand and think about the impact of this development of this size on the community at large, and I’m not saying people on the other side of the Northway, I’m speaking people within reasonable distance who use Blind Rock, who use Haviland Road, for their commutes daily, as I do, as my kids do, as my family does, and I think this has a potential to significantly change the character of the surrounding neighborhood, just primarily because of density, and I don’t think there’s anyone who could reasonably say that it’s not going to change that, and I think it would be wise to expand the number of people that are aware of this project and the potential impact the next time there’s a public hearing. I’ll do my best to do that, but I would implore the Boards to actually consider asking the developer to expand his reach to other people that might be impacted. Gee, I had three of them right off the bat. My next comment is about the variance and 188 residential units, and I counted the number of buildings, and I noticed in the application they referenced I think 11 residential and 4 commercial, which was 15, and I started counting on the map, and I couldn’t quite get the 15, unless I couldn’t see something from my vantage point, but I think there were only 12, and just to my sense of looking at this from a distance, there’s going to be a pretty high density of residential dwellings and a small number of units, at least it looks that way to me, and that kind of leads me to the next step, the first public comment talked about density and John Strough mentioned about the master plan and talking about space and representing this commercially to Bay Road and bringing units to Bay Road, but there was also an aspect in there about preserving green space, and I didn’t think that preserving wetland counted as part of preserving green space. I thought that had something, that the green space, or the wetlands were actually subtracted like you did in terms of the density, but there’s also green space requirements also, if I‘m not mistaken and I’m not sure that that’s taken into account here, because I think there’s a substantial amount of wetlands. I’m not sure, but that’s just one of the thoughts that I had, and I’d like the Board to consider that as they move forward. I think my last comment, actually before my last comment, one of the things that I noticed also when I looked at the plan that they’re actually asking for a variance on setback for Blind Rock. Now I can understand that they want a variance on Bay Road because that’s where all the commercial buildings are supposedly going to be and it’s going to slow down traffic, but on the Blind Rock side, as John mentioned, all we’re going to see is some buildings and some parking lots, and I don’t believe that that’s in the spirit of what the master plan was all about, and I think that that density should be, that setback should be adhered to, especially on Blind Rock. Bay Road would be commercial. Blind Rock really isn’t a commercial avenue, and another comment about the traffic study, I’m sorry I’m bouncing around a little bit, but counsel for the developers mentioned about slowing things down and going back to the traffic study with this amount of people, I don’t believe it’s going to slow down traffic on Blind Rock Road or Bay Road. I think it may slow down once you get to it, but the amount of traffic coming back and forth and the increased traffic that’ll occur on those roads I can assume is going to speed things up, especially for those that live here, and the last comment that I have is pretty much from the standpoint of development and staging. I don’t know the developers. I don’t know their financial resources, but I’ve seen certain developments in Town come to this Boards with plans to do this, that and whatever, and market conditions change and the developments never happen the way they were originally planned, and the developers themselves mention that the first phase is of course residential. Of course that’s where the money is, it’s not in the commercial piece. So my question to the Board is, what if phase two never happens? What’s this going to look like, and in the future is someone going to come back and say, well the market conditions changed, we’re just going to do residential because of whatever reason. So is there any way that we can plan and go forward with that and make sure that something like that doesn’t happen in the future, and again, thanks. I look forward to studying some more, reading the master plan again and zoning codes and coming back and giving some input. Thanks again. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience this evening? Yes, please. DENISE BUHER 12 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) MS. BUHER-I’m Denise Buher. I own the physical therapy office directly across from the project. I agree with all the concerns that everyone just brought forward. Personally, my biggest concern is the setback. My office, I’m sure you guys all know, when you look out the window my patients are, all of my equipment is lined up along that window for people to look out that window, and it’s a great healing experience. It really is and I don’t mean to sound wishy-washy about it, but what they’re going to be looking at is the garage, the back of these buildings, you know, it’s just not, it’s going to hurt my business. It will. So I agree with Mr. Strough’s idea to, you know, let’s have something nice to look at facing Blind Rock versus this project that, you know, everything within this community, you know, these people have wonderful things to look at, you know, the landscaping is gorgeous, and I’m sure these guys will do a great job, but they’re the only ones that are going to see the beauty, not anybody else, and the traffic at that spot is awful right now. I mean, I know you guys work here, I sit through that light three times most every day. It’s awful at a certain time of day, and the cars are lined up way past my building, and my patients can’t make a left hand turn on, from Hunterbrook Road onto Bay as it is. So this is going to have a huge impact on my patients getting in and out of that road. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. This evening is there anyone else in the audience? Yes, please. MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, 25 Blind Rock Road. I do agree about the intersections and the turning lanes. We really need a turning lane there. My other question was, with this dual use of the buildings, is that going to set a precedent on Bay Road for other businesses to have living quarters up over their businesses, and are there in any other parts of the Town? I know it’s allowed on Main Street, but nowhere else at the moment. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, Dr. Sharp. DR. SHARP-I just had one more question, the bank that’s proposed there, how many parking spaces are there allocated for that? Do you know, offhand, Matt? MR. KREBS-Forty-one it says on the plan here. DR. SHARP-Forty-one? The reason I ask is we have, on Hunterbrook there’s a Credit Union now which is woefully under parked or over parked, inadequate parking, and if it weren’t for the fact I have driveway markers on my lawn, and rocks all summer long, they’d just park right on my lawn, because it’s happened before. So, it is a problem, and banks have a lot of turnover. So I think that needs to be a concern, but that’s probably adequate, 41 spaces, but that’s something, food for thought. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else this evening? Seeing no one else this evening, I am going to leave the public hearing open, but if the applicant could come back to the table and maybe address some of the comments that you did hear this evening, and then I’d like to, after that, maybe open it up to some additional discussion by the Zoning Board members and fellow Planning Board members. MR. FULLER-Thank you. Just a quick note, too. I know Mr. Hunsinger commented on, you know, why we’re here, not making decisions, things like that. We’re here for those comments, and the comments that you guys are going to have going forward. Because, you know, we’re going to go invest quite a bit in the engineering side. So far we’ve started on that with traffic, and I’ll get to that in a second, but that’s really why we’re in here is just to get an idea of what concerns you have, so that we can address them when we go forward on the engineering, versus coming in here with a fully engineered plan and having that money spent and get changes, you know, significant changes. So that’s, you know, again, the idea of good planning that’s where we’ve headed. Mr. Krebs, one of the comments was on effective density, and you’re correct. We did back out wetlands, steeps, easements, and then come up with a net number and that’s what generates the density number. That’s standard on any project and we sat down with Keith and Craig and went through that, so that’s how that gets calculated. Similar to parking. There was a question about, you know, are they generated for each use, is there a crossover. The answer to all that is yes, it’s generated for available commercial space, the bank space, and just to hit that last comment real quick. I think the zoning requires 18 for the bank but we’ve got, right next to it on the parking lot on the boulevard and then the other parking lot we’ve got available parking, and the comment is a good one. You run into issues when you’ve got separate owners in a development. So the parking is intended to be cross use, that’s why, honestly, we’ve banked some of it, is hoping that the cross use will allow that to stay banked and not need it, but getting back to the question on calculating the parking, yes, that’s what we did. 13 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) For each office retail restaurant, things like that, there are numbers in the zoning that dictate how many you’re going to need. So we’ve done that based on different scenarios, working. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can you say what those numbers are, other than the ones that you’ve already mentioned? MR. FULLER-No, that’s, 563 required per Code, on the plan, including the bank is 608, but we’ve banked 41. That’s on (lost word). AUDIENCE MEMBER-I was actually referring to ratios for each segment of the overall development, you know, four per thousand, five per thousand, or whatever an office retail. MR. FULLER-Not knowing exactly which one’s going to be a restaurant, or which one is going to be an office or which is going to be a retail, as Dave was just commenting, there’s a mixed use number, ratio that you use, and that’s what we’ve employed to do that, but, yes, to answer your question, when we get back with a full blown site plan we’ll have that delineated right out. We did on different versions, but I don’t think we put it on this one. I don’t have it, but, yes, to answer the question, we will have it, how it breaks down. The name, I completely forgot about that part. That was just at the summer meetings that we’ve had there. We originally started out with Charlotte Square, Charlotte being the county that was basically from this region to Canada. I got that out of the old historic Queensbury blue book, but then as Marilyn said, she came up with some pictures and things at one of the Planning Board meetings and it just fit, because we struggled with a good name that would reflect history, you know, reflect where we’ve come from and she came up with that, and we adopted it. So I think it works. Intersection design traffic. We’ve already started. I live north on Ridge and I come down this way to commute to work, too. So I completely understand trying to get to the municipal center during the day or back from the municipal center to my office downtown. That, getting across Haviland, Bay and Blind Rock, trying to turn left up Bay, it’s a mess, and we know. We’ve already started to see some preliminary numbers. We don’t have a full blown design. We’ll have that when we get in, but right out of the gate I think what we’ve seen is that’s on a timer, and anybody who sits there, and I echo Denise’s comment, because we talked about it, I suffer the same. If you’re trying to go left up Bay, sometimes you could be two or three cycles sitting there, which is certainly would fail any number on parking. So it’s a timed light, that’s the problem. It’s antiquated. So we’re going to look at both proposals, turn lane and switching it over to a sensored light. Different intersections we’ve done that here in the region have been great. So, again, nothing concrete, but certainly changes need to be made. We understand that we’re looking at it, and that’ll be part of the site plan process, obviously, the ZBA will have that information as well when we get into the variances, but we have started, you know, again, we have enough room. We’ve shown, yes, we’ve set it aside. We didn’t show the property line along Blind Rock but our property line actually goes out into what we show as the road there, because we’ve got a turning lane already set aside out of our property on the project. So, again, we’re working on those. MR. KREBS-Matt, from my own experience, if you had a right turn lane there, you would significantly reduce the wait time, because I live over here in Masters Common and I go through that intersection three and four times a day, and a lot of the problem is you have a person who wants to turn left onto Bay Road and all the people who want to go straight or to the right have to wait for that person. So if you relieve that by having a turn lane it would significantly reduce the traffic. MR. FULLER-Yes, we’re looking at, again, both turning lane and the censoring. I think preliminarily, we don’t have hard numbers yet, but I think you’ll be surprised even to see the preliminaries on just a sensor. Just sensor that thing at the busy times of day will stop you from getting more gray hairs at that intersection, but I was actually a little surprised at what the approximates are right now, just from a sensor. MR. HUNSINGER-Have you traffic engineers considered a rotary there at all? That was one of the comments this evening. MR. FULLER-We have looked at it. We’ve looked at all sorts of things. MR. FORD-That’s good. I’m glad you’re examining that. MR. FULLER-There might be some people at the County that might chase you out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no, I know. MR. FORD-So be it. MR. HUNSINGER-I always say that Malta is the rotary capital of New York State. 14 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) MR. FULLER-The Cape Cod of New York. To answer your question, we’ve already started it. That was the first thing we recognized early on the discussions with the Planning Board that changes were going to need to be made out there, and we understand that. We’re working on it right now. Presentation street view, you know, if the two Boards were going to have a conversation about a topic tonight, that would be a good one, ideas. Because if we’re, that would be, my reason being, that would be a major change. It’s doable, but I think we’ve got to talk about it, you know, what the ideas are, if you think it’s a good idea or you don’t. Again, the comment from Mr. Strough being basically parking in the back, buildings on the front. We went back and forth with that at the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, we talked about that a lot the first couple of meetings that you were before the Planning Board. MR. FULLER-Yes, we did, and it’s a bit of a mix, and I’m not going to take issue with his comment. It’s a good comment. We didn’t want to end up, honestly, with what is further down Bay Road, with a great big space in between Bay and the buildings, and then parking out back. We wanted to try to break it up, and that’s why we stuck with the boulevard, and to answer one of the questions, or a comment that came up, yes, there is parking along the boulevard. It’s parallel parking, but there is parking along the boulevard, and your comment is dead on. We went back and forth about putting the buildings on Bay, put the further back, you know, where do we go. We tried to mix it up to accomplish a bit of both goals, not just, because I think, again, when I drive down there, and it’s purely anecdotal, but those developments are just set back. They’re separate, they’re on their own, you know, it’s not an invitation, so to speak. That said, I don’t know that we want Wal-Mart parking. You don’t want all the parking in the front of the building, and that’s not what we propose. We’ve tried to mix it up, again, have it to the southern part, the parking in between the buildings, because we could have had those buildings run along Bay to keep that idea going, but those are all things that we worked through with the Planning Board. So if you have different ideas about that and, you know, that’s, again, a comment that we would like to have a good discussion about, just to kind of see where the Boards are, you know, what your preference is, and I could put the other one back up, but if I showed you the first, not the first, the second proposal before we pulled the building on Bay and Blind Rock down closer, we had a large stormwater retention area that took up the parking lot that’s along Bay, the stormwater management area that’s there now, and where the bank is. That was all, basically it ended up being a wetland that’s similar to some buildings, not all the buildings further down Bay, but similar to that type of look, and again, working with the Planning Board, (lost word) I don’t know that we want to do that, shrink that down a bit, cut it up, maybe a pedestrian bridge over it, again, try to make it a little bit more inviting. That thing can be put anywhere. You can move that around the property, but, again, trying to create space I think is the topic that came up a lot at the Planning Board, trying to create a space, but again, if there’s thoughts on that, we can go through that. MR. KREBS-Well, Matt, I thought one of the other things that we discussed when we talked about the Boulevard is that that gives you a walking area that’s much safer than if you were to put it on Bay Road or on Blind Rock. This way the whole community has a place to go and walk and it’s not on any major traffic road. So that’s the reason for the creation of the boulevard, but you could certainly flip it around, but then the way it is right now, the building faces the boulevard, and I think that’s what we were trying to accomplish. MR. FULLER-Yes, and we actually, one of the comments we had at the Planning Board meeting was trying to increase the density along the boulevard itself, more buildings along the boulevard, but again, with the wetlands and things like that, it just couldn’t make that work, and trying to keep the intersection on Blind Rock right with Hunterbrook, and we don’t want to offset that down further and create traffic issues across the street. A couple of other comments. Green space, we don’t need green space variances. If you’re asking about spaces that will be developed, there’ll be in fill green within that development. So we have not requested nor do I believe we need a variance on green space, but we can double check that as we go forward. One of the comments about looking at backs of buildings and things like that along Blind Rock, they’re not going to be looking at backs of buildings. Again, the idea that keeps coming into my head is drive down Bay Road a little further. You’re not going to look at the back of an office building or something like that. They’re going to be architectural. I have some of them, but they’re mono color as far as the siding goes, but both sides will be architectural. If you look at where we’ve got garage spaces and things like that, they’re, again, cut up more versus just a flat back of the building that’s sitting there. There will be landscaped berm. We worked through that with the Planning Board. That’s expanded a bit, what the Planning Board wanted to see, but there will be landscaping right along Blind Rock as well. So it won’t be open, again, trying to push the feel towards the Bay Road side like some of the comments that we had. MRS. STEFFAN-And, Matt, I also think that that was one of the things that you offered up when we were trying to alleviate the view of the parking lots from Bay and Blind Rock. When you 15 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) offered the raised berms, so that folks would be looking at green versus license plates, and so you had offered that up, and I don’t know if the folks who have looked at the plan for the first time identified that some of the parking will not be accessible, although I do, you know, I have some very strong opinions on the parking, but that certainly was something I don’t know if everybody noticed on the plans about this is surrounded by berms, green berms. MR. FULLER-Yes. A question came up about staging, you know, are they going to build all the residential first and then the market changes. We’ve seen it. Hiland Park’s a classic example. If anybody’s pulled those plans out and seen what was actually approved in that PUD versus what we would ever allow now or what has actually been built. I think you’d be shocked if you actually saw it. The commitment by my clients is to do just what I said, start at, you talk about phases. It’s basically two, as Bob said, the second phase being the southern part, the flex space when it comes up. They’re going to start with that corner and the residential units at the same time. We’re not going to just start building apartments and then leave the front. Again, the Planning Board was very strong about that commitment. That was a good word. That is the commitment, and that’s the plan to do that. Traffic intersection, turning lane, we talked about that, precedent. That’s certainly something from the Zoning Board’s standpoint. Planning Board’s don’t often get caught up in precedent because they’re not adjudicatory. Every site plan’s different, exists on its own. Precedents certainly are something that a Zoning Board keeps in mind. No question. But I think, again, coming from what the Planning Board’s comments, I would ultimately expect that comments like that, the uniqueness, the idea that you’re trying to drive, the Town center that you’re trying to drive, the ZBA is fully capable of, in any decision, setting this aside, as far as setting it apart from any other development. So, as they said the devil’s in the details, but it’s how you generate a decision as to whether or not it’s going to set a huge precedent, and I think in my mind it can be done, without that concern. I think those were the bulk of the comments, and neighborhood and things like that, certainly the Planning Board and Zoning Board will look at those as the criteria. MR. KOSKINAS-Can I ask you a question about these gray lines? These are sidewalks? MR. FULLER-They are. MR. KOSKINAS-And they’re curbed. How do you get snow out of this elegant parking arrangement? MR. MANZ-It’s removed. It’s like any other urban setting, it’s removal. MR. FULLER-Yes, not stored in the front of the Wal-Mart parking lot or the K-Mart parking lot, removed. MR. KOSKINAS-I mean, just, if we have snow like we had this past year, just plowing is a good time. MR. FULLER-Yes, and my office on Pearl Street is a classic example. They had to come in twice last winter and actually with a dump truck remove the snow, because we were losing parking spaces. To a degree you get away with banking it in a corner, but that’s not, in a more village center. MR. KOSKINAS-You have no outlets for the snow, no storage areas for the snow? MR. FULLER-Removed. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from any of the Board members? Comments? MR. MANZ-Good evening. My name’s Bob Manz. I’m one of the developers and I spoke to you a little bit earlier, but I just wanted to take a minute and thank you for having the Planning and Zoning Board together so that we could kind of all talk through what is an extremely critical and important project for the Town. The Town ultimately, and I think the Planning Board has been fantastic in trying to fashion a, you know, a future view, if you will, to the Town of Queensbury, and this project, we’ve already gone through three iterations, now, or four iterations, in the past six months. We can move the building in. We can move the building out. We can put it closer, we can put it farther away. Ultimately, we understand, Danny Galusha, myself, Tom (lost word), the other partner, understand this is one of the most critical intersections that the Town has, and the Town ultimately, you know, the vision that you guys have, is ultimately going to put a face on the Town of Queensbury in this area for the future, and you know, we understand that, and that’s the reason why we’re here. That’s the reason why, you know, we’re presenting as many concepts as we have already, but ultimately you’re never going to get 100 people that agree with one concept. You’re going to have to come up with a majority. It’s going to have to be, you know, what we see as being the best overall plan, with the most pros and the least cons for this 16 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) project for the future. There’s a lot of big things you’ve got to look at here. Traffic is definitely an issue, okay. It’s a great concept talking about traffic circles. Very slow, very different traffic circle in Glens Falls, one lane, okay, and even that one you better be awful careful trying to walk across anywhere in there, because I’m sure as all of you know, you come in to a traffic circle, you have a hard enough time keeping track of the cars, much less a pedestrian that’s trying to get across the street. So all of these things, while they have pros, they also have cons, and they have to be considered, you know, very carefully. The pro to a traffic circle is it’s pretty efficient. Cars can get through there, you know, a number of cars can get through there. The cons to it are it is adverse to any kind of pedestrian. It’s downright dangerous. Down in Malta, forget it. You have two lanes going around those traffic circles. You can’t get across, you know, you cross here ten times in a day you’re going to get hit at least once. You can almost count on it, and that’s the truth. I mean, I’ve seen enough accidents in those traffic circles with people trying to figure out whether they’re supposed to be on the inside lane or the outside lines, so those are critical things to, you know, considering this intersection here, and currently what’s already been done by our traffic engineers, they’ve been out here. They’ve done the counts. They’ve done inspections. They’ve been standing there looking at the backups. You have problems, okay, and, you know, that’s something that you have to deal with, but you also, and we’ve talked about this in a couple of the Planning Board meetings. If you ever think you’re going to create any kind of village or any kind of town square feeling, that traffic ends up having to be slowed down. It has to be understood by the traffic over the period of time, this isn’t my cutthroat, this isn’t my high speed area to get around town. It has to be slowed down. Ultimately if you want to be successful, this area over here, that’s a key to tying in the campus with what you want to accomplish here as a village. It’s a big key, you know, you obviously can’t drive it. You can certainly push it along, but ultimately with the vision, I think, that has been presented, with having the campus tying into the ability to have this area developed, and the local residences just off of Haviland, you could, in the future, actually have a village square area, okay. We’re happy to try to accomplish this with you, but at some point in time, you know, we have to say, okay, the building’s going to finally be set here. We’ve moved it back. We’ve moved it in. We can move it over another 10 feet. We can move it back 5 feet, you know, ultimately we want to do, as I said before, what has the most pros and the least cons, and produce, you know, what by far can be a fantastic village center, and we’re hopeful that, through this process, we can get to that finish line with this project and move it forward, and when we move it forward, as Matt’s already said, and I said earlier, there’s two phases, and in phase one, we will build this building first along with starting a couple of the residential units. Those will be being done coincidence to each other. You can’t drive without driving the other. Thank you very much. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Well, seeing no other comments from any Board members, unless Gretchen wants to say something. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I just have a couple of thoughts, and these are kind of site plan issues, but I know that the applicant asked for input, and as you identified a little bit earlier, Building Five and Building Four are phase two, but some of the comments that I’ve made previous to this meeting is that I’d like to see an underground parking garage. There’s going to be too much blacktop, whether it’s pervious pavement or not, in my mind, there’s just too many parking spaces. Building Four and Five, I would like to see them turned so that they’re facing Bay Road, versus seeing the end caps of both of those buildings. I don’t think it does the town square justice or it’s inviting people in, you know, to not see the long side of a building, and the opportunities are available. Plus in the phase two area, where you’ve got Building Four and Five, that’s prime view, you know, you’re looking out beyond ACC, and you’re looking over to the mountains, and that’s a very marketable piece of property. So I also think that, you know, facing those buildings toward Bay Road is the right thing to do. I think the way they’re positioned right now with all those parking spaces, probably not good. If we were looking at the topography of the land, the land slopes down toward the wetland there, and I think that there’s an idea opportunity for a, you know, if it were a house, there’d be an opportunity for a walk-out basement. So I think that there’s an opportunity, based on the slope of the land, to put an underground parking, you know, and work with the contours of the land, you know, very positively to use those unique landforms to do the right thing in that section over there. Again, the parking, you know, just as I look at it and I numbered the parking, you know, I understand the calculations are correct based on, you know, what you’ve got for apartments, but I just, I don’t want to see that many cars, and if it’s going to be a beautiful place to be, and to walk and if there’s going to be a lot of energy, and we all know that mixed use development is a very popular development trend right now, you know, people are going to want to be outside and so green space, I think, is very important, and we’ve got too much parking space versus green space, and one of the other things that we were trying to do with having these buildings here and having this whole area be mixed use is that we were trying to get people out of their cars. We wanted them to live here. We wanted them to stay here. If you think of an area, like the New York Metropolitan area, they have little shops, they have bodegas, you know, you can go, you can pick up fruits and vegetables. You can go out to eat, you can go have a cup of coffee somewhere and sit at the café, and those are some of the things that we talked about, and so 17 (Joint Meeting – PB/ZBA 08/31/2011) some of the commercial uses have to be able to support the apartment development and also to be able to attract people from the commercial developments that are across the street, folks from the Town, you know, we have talked about traffic and pedestrian traffic, and I know that those things are important, and I know you’re going to present traffic studies, but in my mind, the commercial development that’s here is going to promote walking traffic and attract those people from the professional offices from the Town and then kids and even professional staff from the College up to have lunch or to go to a café in those commercial building, and so we really do have to spend a lot of time dissecting those traffic patterns and those pedestrian patterns because, you know, if this is going to happen, this is going to be a homerun for the Town in my mind, and so we have to make sure that we cover those bases and we make sure that it’s using the property in a optimal way so it can meet everyone’s needs, and, you know, it’s one of the last big pieces of property where we can do some of those things. I’m not excited or anything. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Gretchen. I want to remind the public that we have left the public hearing open. So there will be additional opportunity to speak in front of this Board. Concerning this project, and I think at this point, I guess you’re looking for a motion for us to table. Until when? MR. OBORNE-I’ll answer that. Pending a formal application to the Planning Board. It will go through the process of following the proper protocols. MR. JACKOSKI-So then maybe no action should be taken at all this evening? MR. OBORNE-No action except a tabling. Leave the public hearing open, which you already have. MR. FULLER-Yes, that or table pending completed site plan. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce, would you like to make a motion? MRS. HUNT-To table? MR. JACKOSKI-To table pending application. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2011 QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LLC, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: st Duly adopted this 31 day of August, 2011, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. OBORNE-Just a note to all Planning Board members, I do have your application packets for the month behind you. So before you leave, I’d like to hand them out to you. MR. JACKOSKI-And since Chairman Hunsinger opened this joint meeting, I will entertain a motion to adjourn this joint meeting. MRS. HUNT-So moved. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. Brian seconds. All in favor? All opposed? Abstained? We’re adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman – Planning Board Steven Jackoski, Chairman – Zoning Board of Appeals 18