Staff Notes_06 21 12
Department of
Community Development
Queensbury Planning Board
Staff Notes
June 21, 2012
APPLICATION: Site Plan 21-2012
APPLICANT: Ben L. Aronson
REQUESTED ACTION: Revisions to approved site plans require Planning Board review /
approval
LOCATION: 64 Main Street
EXISTING ZONING: MS-Main Street
SEQRA STATUS: Unlisted
WARREN CO. REFERRAL: Sent 3/29/2012
ENGINEERING REVIEW: 4/13/2012, 5/22/2012 & on going
PARCEL HISTORY: AV 10-02: Permeability relief Approved 2/20/02
AV 83-99: After the fact relief for addition Approved 10/20/99
SP 49-99: Building expansion and site work Approved 9/28/99
AV 19-97: Setback and Permeability for addition Approved
4/16/97
UV 18-97: Wholesale Distribution Use Approved 4/19/97
SP 22-97: Warehouse addition Approved 7/22/97
AV 15-94: Warehouse addition-relief from side, rear &
permeability Approved 1994
AV 94-92: Cooler addition-relief from permeability Withdrawn
AV 29-92: Walk-in freezer-rear yard setback relief Approved
4/15/92
AV 1287: 24 x 30 warehouse addition-side & rear yard setback
relief Approved 9/16/87
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes 53 parking spaces on vacant land to the east of which 24
spaces to be banked for future use. Proposal to include new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater controls
(New Comments on Bold).
Review:
Page C-1
1.
Off street parking in front of buildings is prohibited in the Main Street zone as per §179-7-070B4.
Existing and proposed conditions include loading area and customer parking in front of building
and as such, consideration to relocate these loading and parking areas should be explored.
Commented but staff not in agreement with applicant’s response concerning §179-7-070B4.
2.
Gravel parking surfaces appear to be relegated to peak period (spillover) parking areas and do not
apply to employee or customer parking as per §179-7-070B4. Consideration should be given for
the installation of pervious pavement to potentially satisfy stormwater controls and parking surface
requirements. Permeable pavement should be considered in place of macadam or gravel as this
would eliminate the need for control structures and potentially eliminate the need for on-going
maintenance of swales and drywells as a result of the gravel parking base. Further, this “green”
th
Comments made at the April 17
practice reduces the need for salt during the winter months.
Planning Board meeting appear to have been pre-mature as the applicant has no intention of
paving the new parking area. It is staffs position that gravel parking is for spill over only and
as such the Planning Board must make a decision on this issue.
3.
Easements associated with future interconnects should be formalized with adjoining property
Commented and clarification is needed on the following:
owners as per §179-7-070B4.
Location of inter-connects on plan should be denoted.
4.
Consideration should be given to orienting the proposed parking along an east-west axis along the
south portion of the parcel in anticipation of future development. This would meet the intent of the
Staff met with the applicant’s
code with regards to the rear parking requirement of the zone.
agent on this matter and although understands the purpose of the submitted design,
consideration for an east-west orientation should be discussed.
Page C-2
1.Grading not denoted on grading plan only existing contours. Please clarify this omission.
Complete.
2.This will need to be denoted on site plan, specifically on page C-
What are the limits of grading?
2.
Page C-3
1.
Parking lot lighting not to exceed 2.5 footcandles; proposal calls for 10.3 in the area of the pole
Commented and the applicant
mounted fixture. Reduction of bulb wattage appears warranted.
has offered to reduce the wattage with the trade-off being darker conditions in the rear
corners of the lot.
Page C-4
1.
Large deciduous trees should be encouraged to remain in order to comply with the deciduous tree
requirement for the zone (see §179-7-070A4b). It is uncertain if the existing large tree to the east
Tree to be saved and parking area to be utilized as motorcycle
will remain, please clarify.
parking; signage should be added to plan for this change.
2.
Type C buffer required between warehouse and residential area to the south. Please see §179-8-060
Complete with explanation that use along the south property line is
for additional information.
commercial and as such a buffer is not required.
Pages C-5
1.No immediate issues.
- 2 -
Pages D-1 through D-3
1.
It is staff’s opinion that the proposed rain gardens denoted on page D-2 would fail over time due to
Commented and discussion on the
sediment loading from proposed gravel parking lot.
mentioned compromise should ensue.
(New Comments in Bold):
Additional comments
1.
It could be argued that gravel parking along Main Street is and was not the intention of this district.
Commented but staff not in agreement with applicant’s response.
2.Commented.
Main Street guidelines apply in regards to parking.
3.Concerning public comments on road dust from existing parking lot along Second Street
received at the April 17 Planning Board meeting, clarification on the methods by which dust
will be controlled should be forthcoming. Staff recommends permeable asphalt.
4.Chazen comments attached.
L:\Keith Oborne\2012 Staff Notes\Planning\April 17\SP 21-12 Aronson.doc
- 3 -