Loading...
Town of Queensbury Staff Notes Town of Queensbury Planning Board Department of Community Development Staff Notes Reference: Site Plan 14 - 03 Applicant: Hoffman Development Location: Quaker Rd. (east of Applebees and Lowes) Zone: Highway Commercial Intensive (HC-Int) Meeting Date: March 25, 2003 Pro'ect Descri tion: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 16,000 sq. ft. oil change/car wash building with associated lighting, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of OueensbjM Zoni Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Car washes and oil change facilities are allowed in the HC-Int zone with Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. This proposal requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit as well as a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No burden on public services is anticipated as a result of this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? The proposed use will most likely result in increased traffic in this area. Information concerning the amount of traffic and the potential impacts has not been provided by the applicant. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the proiect; Will the protect have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the proiect? The proposal will have an impact on on-site wetlands. Whether or not these impacts are adverse will be addressed as part of the review of the Freshwater Wetlands Permit and this Site Plan. t A • Applicant. Hoffman Deve, ment Date March 25, 2003 Page-2- The following general standards were con'sidercd in the staff revieq of this rnoiect L The location arrangement size design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. As proposed the site plan appears to be adequately designed in terms of building location and vehicular access. 2. The adeouacv and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths,pavement surfaces,dividers and traffic controls. Staff has some concerns about traffic circulation, which will be discussed in the Staff Comments section of this document. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The number of parking spaces provided on the Site Plan meets Zoning Ordinance requirements for this type of use. 4. The adeouacv and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access in the form of walkways adjacent to the building will be provided 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted information regarding stormwater management that has been forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. 6. The adequacy of water suolly and sewage disposal facilities. This site will connect to municipal water and wastewater service. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The proposed landscaping appears to be consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements for landscaping 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Adequate lanes are shown to accommodate emergency response vehicles. Planning Board Community Development Department Staff Notes Applicant: Hoffman Deveia"pment Date March 25, 2003 Page-3- 9. The adequacy and impact of structures roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Indications are that some portions of the northern and western area of this site may be in the 100- year floodplain. The proposed building development appears to be located just outside of floodplain areas. staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 16,000 square foot car wash/oil change facility on Quaker Rd. The applicant's proposal also requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit as well as a NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit for construction within a regulated area of a wetland. The applicant proposes to access the property across lands of Niagara Mohawk from a two-way access drive. Internal vehicle circulation is proposed as a mix of one-way and two-way traffic, which in areas could lead to potential vehicle conflicts. Creating a one-way on-site traffic pattern as indicated at the western area of the site would be preferable for on-site traffic circulation. The Site Plan that has been submitted shows a three-way intersection just south of the self serve wash and jiffy lube that would have conflicting two-way movements approaching from different directions. Since it appears that vehicles will be exiting the buildings at the south, the drive area in this location could be one-way exiting to the east and then south off of the site (which appears to be a continuation of the one-way pattern proposed by the applicant at the west of the site. The proposed two-way drive just east of the self-serve wash could be made a one-way road to the north and then west. Information concerning off-site traffic impacts (trip generation data or traffic counts) has not been submitted by the applicant. The proposed lighting plan shows lighting levels that appear to excessively exceed light levels contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Light levels for interior parking lot areas, building exteriors and street intersections are far above levels for commercial uses. The proposed light levels appear to exceed the light level requirements for the most intensive uses in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant's lighting plan shows two diagrams of fixtures, while the fixture schedule lists three different types. The proposed standard floodlight does not have light down facing at a 90 angle as required by the Zoning Ordinance. What are the proposed heights of the fixtures? Cut sheets should be provided for proposed lighting. Is any building lighting proposed? What is the uniformity ratio of the plan that has been submitted? Overall, the lighting plan does not contain enough information to provide complete comment. The information that has been provided does not appear to conform to Zoning Requirements. I have attached a Staff lighting review for a Cumberland Farms gas station, previously reviewed by the Planning Board. This memorandum is being provided to the Planning Board as an outline of the items Staff considers when reviewing lighting plans. The Planning Board may wish to consider these questions and items as part of a final approval for the proposed lighting plan. Planning Board Community Development Department Staff Notes Applicant: Hoffman Devefinent • Date March 25, 2003 Page 4- Additional Questions: -What is Niagara Mohawk's position on landscaping and lighting and vehicular access on their property? -What type of maintenance of proposed stormwater facilities is proposed? SEAR Status: Type Unlisted: a Long Form EAF has been submitted. Planning Board Community Development Department Staff Notes T a • • TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-5902 Memorandum TO: Planning Staff FROM: Marilyn Ryba, AICP, Senior Planner CC: Chris Round, Executive Director, Community Development Dept. DATE: November 19, 2001 RE: Cumberland Farms, comer Main St/Ryan St.- Lighting and Architectural Review I have reviewed the plans for Cumberland Farms, Main St./ Ryan St. location sheets1 through 12, dated Oct. 24, 2001, focusing on lighting impacts. I have also reviewed these plans with regards to the Town of Queensbury proposed Zoning Ordinance. The location of the proposal is Main St., which has special design considerations in the proposed Zoning Ordinance, since this area is scheduled for highway and other redevelopment Lighting Review Questions asked in reviewing the plans are as follows: 1. Is lighting proposed for this site appropriate for the area? 2. Is there light spill over onto adjacent properties? If so, are there any mitigating steps proposed/needed? 3. Is all lighting proposed, and existing lighting to remain, taken into consideration (i.e. building, canopy, perimeter lighting, etc.)? 4. Are lighting plans easily read, understood and consistent with scale of the base site plan? 5. Are statistical summaries available for the overall site and for particular elements of the plan (i.e. canopy, parking, driveways, etc.)? 6. Is a luminaire schedule available showing symbols, quantity, arrangement, lumens, light loss factors, wattages, and lamp types? 7. Is the lighting consistent with the scale of buildings/structures on site and with adjacent buildings? 8. Does proposed lighting meet the intent of guidelines in the proposed zoning ordinance? To answer whether or not the lighting is appropriate, all other questions need to be addressed first. Illuminance Existing street lighting needs to be taken into consideration. If the street lighting is scheduled for future changes, those changes should be considered in illumination calculations. Driveway access lighting should have similar intensity to that of local public street lighting. Driver vision cannot adjust quickly enough to disparate lighting situations, which means that abrupt changes in driveway access to street lighting could create an unsafe situation. Street lighting is usually dependent on the roadway type. Light fixtures of a particular architectural style could impact the overall illuminance. These fixtures, if needed, should be coordinated with an overall street scheme. The amount of TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT March 19, 2003 pedestrian interaction expected should also be considered in lighting. Interior building lighting and any exterior building lighting will also impact the sidewalk pedestrian area as well as the site. To determine appropriate illuminance as well as uniformity ratios, the following areas should be delineated, with a schedule provided on the plan. IESNA recommendations are shown. As evidenced by the proposed lighting plan, the fc levels are extremely high, even for more brightly lit surroundings. Site Area IESNA Recommendation' Shown Gas station approach/driveway 2 fc 1.3 to 4.8 Pump island 10 fc (light surroundings) 46.2 to 89.1 Service areas 3 fc 0.5 to 29 Commercial parking lot 2.5 fc 0.6 to 6.1 " Lighting for Exterior Environments 2/27199 Uniformity The uniformity ratio should be 4:1 overall for the entire site. This can be difficult to achieve, especially if there are different activities on the site. Uniformity calculations need to be provided for each area, as noted above, and for the entire site. The difference from minimum to maximum lighting should be no greater than a 10:1 ratio for parking lots, and 20:1 in any instance. Differences beyond 20:1 compromise safety. The human eye can only adjust to one light level, which is determined by the brightest light level in view. Therefore, peripheral vision (darker areas) becomes difficult. Schedule The applicant should provide statistical and luminaire schedules on the plan. These schedules will make it easier for the Planning Board and staff to determine whether or not lighting is appropriate for the site, i.e. safety considerations as well as Main St. corridor aesthetics. The statistical schedule should contain the average, maximim, and minimum fc, and the avg./min. and max./min. fc for gas canopy, diesel station, Cumberland Farms store, Subway store, parking areas of each, curb levels, and access drives. The luminaire schedule should contain symbols, quantity, arrangement, lumens llf(light loss factor), cut sheet description, lens typeand wattages for each type of light. A narrative regarding existing/proposed street lighting, and building lighting to the sidewalk/street would be helpful. Spillover Lighting spillover will occur on adjacent properties with the lighting plan proposed. This is most evident on the neighboring residential properties to the east. There is a spruce row, however, additional buffering is recommended for the comer where those residential properties meet. The Planning Board has been very careful in the past to not allow light spill onto adjacent property. 2 March 19, 2003 Pole Height/Color Pole heights are 16 ft. high each. Although these heights are higher than the Stewart's gas station just west of 1-87 on Corinth Rd. (14 ft.), the pole heights are still less than the 20 ft. maximum for fixture placement. Poles will be anondized black aluminum, which is consistent with the pole color desired by the Town. Decorative poles are at 12 ft., with the fixture adding almost another 4 ft. Fixtures Lighting proposed is 400 watt metal halide for the canopy and area lighting. The advantages in using metal halide light for gas stations is better security due to color perception, drivers and pedestrians are more comfortable since there is better peripheral vision at lower light levels, and lamps are less expensive (250 to 400 watts). High pressure sodium lighting is preferred as per the proposed Zoning ordinance. The primary advantage here is energy efficiency and the desirability of a wanner light, especially in winter. The overall lighting scheme for Main St. should be considered. Security Greater lighting levels are not needed for security purposes. The average fc levels for security lighting purposes for a commercial/industrial area is 1.5 fc. Research done at the RPI Lighting Institute shows that beyond an average 3.0 fc level, there is no additional sense of security. Also, glare is detrimental to security cameras since the shadows created defeats the purpose of security cameras. Conclusions As shown, the lighting proposed is more intense than necessary, particularly under the canopy. However, additional information will make analysis easier and more accurate. Recommendations • Ask about the lighting to remain on after closing hours, including sign and building lighting (exterior and interior). • Consider high pressure sodium instead of metal halide lighting as per the proposed zoning ordinance. • There should not be any lighting spill over onto adjacent properties. • Develop a revised lighting plan noting all considerations/requests outlined here. 3