Loading...
Application8/20/02 Site Plan Review Application No. (Office Use Only) Project Location: Tax Map ID: Zone Classification: Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Detailed Description of Project: (include current & proposed use): General Information 13 —Zc0y T2, H G Section• Modification to existing Site Plan, Yes (If so, indicate Site Plan No. & approval date) _ Square Footage of proposed structure: Applicant: Address: Home Phone: Work Phone / Fax: /3-200`/ /Jjv 2 i o5/ No: Q v D i-, 4A EA -rc- 7 & Ko vc i -rL�Q f2 4 CC L,4r-c— Gyo2c.t 66oc- Y2 ff 792 - 03L6 Applicant's Agent: z 4�--wti+ I jr /21 c Cc2d y Address: e4l i/ /2cj U .yrF'. -r4 c- e=S/ G v , Home Phone: 66E w FacCS u /3Zr Work Phone / Fax: 76/ - 03/7 e 76 / &, 7 Property Owner: Address: PAC /C /-/-0✓ � Home Phone: Work Phone / Fax: Directions to Site: 1150 2 ,UF Cne•v<•e_ or= /Li 9 Ro,JV)D ?oN0 20Ce '1 8/20/02 Site Plan Review 8 Site Development Data Area /Type Existing sq. ft. Proposed Addition sq. ft. Total sq. ft. A. Building Footprint Z/77 o 8 0 231(Z B. Detached Garage C. Accessory Structure(s) D. Paved, gravel or other hard surfaced areas 6 2 Z� E. Porches /Decks F. Other two ` 00 C) OoD Total Non -Permeable sum A through F 17 6 h'D 6 1( �(p �Y6 Parcel Area S l Z rF 5 S2 s Percent Non -Permeable Total Non-Permeable/Parcel Area C� • � �o � I � 01/0 Y7 • 9 Setback Requirements • Required Existing Proposed Front(1) 0 ZZ$ , 34 Front (2) � tF 619 Shoreline Side Yazd(1) ZO //©• 1�0 Side Yard (2) 3 O Rear Yard (1) r � ^7 . y& Rear Yazd (2) Buffer /Travel Corridor Height L Y� q0 Permeability Cl g, 2 0� 6 Sign Setback Ctrn/ No. of Parking Spaces 178 FLOOR AREA RATIO WORKSHEET Any construction, addition or replacement of structures in the Waterfront Residential Zones (WR-IA & WR- 3A) is subject to the Floor Area Ratio requirements as defined in Section 179-16 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the relationship of building size to lot size derived by dividing the total building square footage by the lot size in square feet, yielding a percentage. The maximum allowable FAR is 22 percent. ** Please note that FAR requirements are separate and distinct from the permeable area requirements that may apply. Building square footage includes all floors of the primary structure, covered porches, and basements (when at least three (3) feet in height of one (1) wall is exposed and the space meets the living space requirements as defined in Section 711 and 712 of the NYS Building Code — see reverse side of Rage. Detached storage buildings greater than 100 sq. ft. and detached garages are so included in the FAR calculations. Building square footage does not include: open decks, docks and that portion of covered docks extending into the water, and one shed 100 sq. ft. or less. All additional sheds are included in the FAR calculations. UselLocation Existing Areas . ft.)__Proposed Areas . ft.) Primary House Ek/ r AJ oT 147 i o l First Floor Second Floor Basement (living space) Covered or enclosed porches Covered decks Guest House Uo Qs S. 0-c- Apartment Detached Garage(s) Shed (I shed 100 sq. ft. or less exempt) Covered Dock or Boathouse (portion on land) Other (describe): CA /,V f S lJ (J A. Lot area: Acres x 43,560 = 2 $c% / 1 Z B. Total Allowable Floor Area = A x .22 7 ids i 7 C. Existing Floor Area; Total from above limes / 2 Q D. Remaining Area: potentially developable = B minus C Cj 6 E. Proposed Area of Construction *** If E is larger than D, a variance or revisions to your plan may be needed. Please consult with Staff. 8/20/02 Site Plan Review Checklist — please prepare a map depicting existing and proposed conditions. Failure to complete the following checklist or include all required information may result in a determination of incompleteness and a delay in the nrocessine of vour annlication PR NA WR Address Each Item GENERAL A. Title, name, address of applicant & person responsible for preparation of drawing B. North arrow, Tax Map ID, date prepared and scale (minimum 1 in. = 40 ft.) r/ C. Boundaries of the property plotted to scale, zoning boundary r/ D. Location of principal structures, accessory structures with exterior dimensions ✓ E. Location of site improvements incl. outdoor storage areas, driveways (existing & proposed) parking areas, etc. F. Setbacks for all structures and improvements G. Elevations of proposed structures WATER & SEWER A. Location of on -site sewage disposal facilities, design details, construction details, flow rates, and number of bedrooms proposed J B. Location of water supply (i.e., well) and septic on adjoining lots with separation distances to existing or proposed on -site water supply and septic C. Separation distances for proposed sewage disposal system to well and waterbodies D. Location and description of existing public or private water supply (well, lake, etc.). Method of securing public or private water, location, design and construction of water supply including daily water usage E. Percolation test location and results PARKING / PERMEABLE AREAS A. Number of spaces required for project including calculations and justification l/ B. Number of existing parking spaces, number to be removed, number to maintain and type of surfacing material e.., gravel,paved) C. Provision for pedestrian and handicap access and parking D. Location and design details of ingress, egress, loading areas and cutting / t E. Location and character of green areas (existing and proposed), modification to green area, buffer zone to remain undisturbed F. Lighting, location and design of all existing or proposed outdoor lighting ADDITIONAL SITE DEVELOPMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS A. Location of on -site & adjacent watercourses, streams, rivers, lake and wetlands B. Location of proposed & existing: utility/energy distribution systems (gas, electric, solar, telephone) C. Location, design and construction of all existing and proposed site improvements including: drains, culverts, retaining walls, fences, fire & emergency zones and hydrants D. Location and amount/portion of building area proposed for office, manufacturing, retail sales or other commercial activities E. Signage: Location, size, type, design and setback F. Waiver Request: provide letter with application requesting any waivers G. Commercial / Industrial Development requires submission of a Landscaping Plan, Stormwater Mana ement Plan, Grading Plan and a Lighting Plan H. The Bd. may request other elements as considered necessary. I. Identify any Federal, State or County permits required for the project. J. Please submit record of application for approval status of all necessary permits required from Federal, State and Coun officials. Legend: PR — Provided; NA — Not Applicable; WR —Waiver Requested / a TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 742 Bay Road, Queeasbury, NY. 12804-5902 Town of Queensbury Planning Board Waiver Request I hereby request that the Planning Board grant me a waiver from the requirement for the submission of the following plans. w,"Stormwater Management Plan a Grading Plan w/'Ughting Plan w//Landscaping Plan w Skgtch Plan approval ( Subdivision ) I acknowledge that these plans are required and I seek such waiver(s) knowingly and for the following reasons: / 14/S /f C 4-no sv Q F AN 13 'ZOocy. rp .M Po ai C-AlTX /N 1) rCATg-A 90 V�L tA 160 c_ So App49�j6 D aAJ 12t r'^ Ar 7: Applicant L•\Crdg\templates\wdverReg8602.doc ,--s,-o It Dat 8/20/02 Site Plan Review 141e.4 (H)95)—Taxi 12 PROJECT 1.0. NUMBER 61720 SEOR Appendix C State Environmental Quality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART I -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be Completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) 1 ICANT /SPONSOR AviD TC/L 2. OJ NAME PtaS E'( qtG, 7. PROJECT LOCATION: MunlclPality L FN DOIm ��tt f� ` A LP- l � a. PRECISE LOCATION (Street addraas and road lnlenwxd prominent landmarks, eta., or provide map) ✓L P-T9 '�>T, I — PoZn-% t;= 43 'T C-s.) R-AjL OF Riz�Nil �JNfl f�7 N t-2 SF CT7 OA) S. IS PROPOSED ACTION: �/ ❑NOW ❑Expansion XIModiflutionfallwation e. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: (V\ J ( Iz I C A-r, c);v CS F r1?f�4—cT/G t� S 1 r� hit. A A� e3 F 3 S-ro/Zy V4 uT r—L (APP/�X y,5f0cJ $1 ) 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially acres Uitknately acres S. WILLEROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? fi�q ❑ No if No. describe bNefly 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ❑RwdanlW ❑Ind"bial ❑Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑ ParidForesVOpm space ❑Other Dseadbc NC -TNTe,,3jiue W/ AI'1/\vSf-rr1 &�',�r 7)42K / MO'Te-c— , AV-rO SQL_;ZS �t STAvQQ W7�J D?QC eA.oT, to. DOES ACTION INVOLVE —A PERMIT APPROVAL OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAu117F�,/R6L/7t If W . w yes. net aganry(s) and per ralf pprovala If. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRiNKY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑No If ust � s yea agency nerve and permivapprovw 0. -0 —t l aUs. sIRF Ic'LA/v AaPud1JAL_ 13-2 W4 12. A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION NRL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? ❑No p I RTIFY THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE 13 TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE �Y Applleant/sponeor Date: L� `yV✓` Signature: If the action Is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 /a 8/20/02 Site Plan Review PART II —ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (TO be completed by Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR PART 617.47 1f yes, 000rtllnate the'" Meccas sec use me FULL EAP. ❑Ym ❑No B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 817.87 If No, a negatM declaration may be superseded by IVWQW Involved egancv. ❑Yea ❑No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritim. if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, not" Weis, existing traffic PRttems, solid wore Production or disposal, Potential for aroalen, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly. C2 Afrathalic agricultural. archaeological, historic, a other natural a cultural rm m,,a: w community a neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C7. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife special, significant habitats, or threatened or andangerad apeclsa7 Explain briefly: Ce. A communitys existing plane a goals as officially adopled, or a ch", in use or Intensity of use of lard or other natural im,m,w? Explain briefly CS. Growth, subsequent devabpment, Of related activities likely I&M Induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly. CS. Long tam, short farm, cumulative, or othw effects not Identified In C1057 Explain briefly. C7. Omer Impacts (Including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly. D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CEA? ❑Yee ❑No E. IS THERE, OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? ❑Yee ❑No If Yes, explain briefly PART 111—DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS For own adverse effect identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important or otherwise significant. Each offset should be asssaeed In connection with Its (a) setting Il.e. urban Or rural' (b) probability of Occurring, (c) duration; (it) Irreversibility; (e) 90WMOIC Scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materiels. Ensure that exptanatlons contain sufficient detail to an" that aU relevant adverse impacts have been klantlRed and adequately addressed. If question D of Pan 11 was checked yes, the determination and significance must evaluate the potential Impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CFA ❑ Check this box it you have Identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL FAF and)or prepare a positive declaration. ❑ Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above andanysupporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination: Name Of fired Aamcy Print Or Type N.. .1 Re mnf a bRZ. In Lted Aamcy Tithe of Responsible Officr, iaruturs (4Aimr,,pulum separer l I Brent ram'vegan e o Icw 13 8/20/02 Signature Page Site Plan Review This Page includes the Authorization to Act as Agent Form, Engineering Fee Disclosure, Other Permit Responsibilities and Agreement to provide documentation required. Complete the following if the OWNER of the property is not the same as the applicant Owner's Agent Form Owner: Designates: E'uAA J M AX-- EL 40 Y As agent regarding Variance Site Plan _ Subdivision For Tax Map No.: Z9S Section �_ Block Lot Deed Reference: �Book Page _ Date SIGNATURE: (Owner) /Y o (Date) Complete the following if the APPLICANT is unable to attend the meeting or wishes to be represented by another party: Applicant's Agent Form Owner: Designates: As agent regarding: For Tax Map No.: SIGNATURE: _ Variance _ Site Plan _ Subdivision Section Block Lot (Owner) (Date) EnLdneerin2 Fee Disclosure: Applications may be referred to the Town consulting engineer for review of septic design, storm drainage, etc. as determined by the Zoning or Planning Department. Fees for engineering review services will be charged directly to the applicant. Fees for engineering review will not exceed $1,000 without notification to the applicant. Please Note: Other permits may be required for construction or alteration activity subsequent to approval by the Zoning Board or Planning Board. It is the applicant's responsibility to obtain any additional permits. Official Meeting Minutes Disclosure: It is the practice of the Community Development Dept. to have a designated stenographer tape record the proceedings of meetings resulting from application, and that minutes transcribed from those tapes constitute the official record of all proceedings. If there is a discrepancy between such record and the handwritten minutes taken by the designated stenographer, the handwritten minutes shall be deemed the official record. I, the undersigned, have thoroughly read and understand the instructions for submission, agree to the submission requirements and completed the checklist. co SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT: C�Date SIGNATURE OF AGENT: - Date To: From: Date: Re: • 0 TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY, 12804-5902 Memorandum Planning Board George Hilton, Planner October 26, 2004 SP 13-2004, David Menter The applicant proposes to modify a previous approval for a motel by relocating the motel approximately 30 ft. to the northeast and raising the elevation of the building 5 feet above the previously approved elevation. Additionally, the applicant proposes to construct a 300 sq. ft. addition to the previously approved building. How will the relocation of this building impact previous stormwater, lighting and landscaping plans? How will the relocation of the building and raising its elevation impact visibility of the building from surrounding properties? TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TOWN OF QUEENSBURY 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-5902 Memorandum To: Town of Queensbury Planning Board CC: Marilyn Ryba, Planning Staff From: Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer Date: November 22, 2004 Re: Six Flags Management/NIMO concerns over trees endangering distribution lines (Site Plan 4-2004: Hotel and Indoor Water Park) I have been asked by Marilyn Ryba to provide my opinion on the concerns of the Six Flags management and the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NIMO) regarding the mature white pines adjacent to the recently demolished Holtz House (immediately north of the Coach House Restaurant). The trees in question were approved to remain. NIMO forester, Steve Sweet, feels that a number of the above -referenced trees are in danger of falling on their 13,200-volt distribution lines and potentially onto the travel lane of State Route 9. Marilyn Ryba has requested I provide my opinion based on my field observations, my educational background (Dual Bachelor of Science in Environmental and Forest Biology/Resources Management) and on my past professional work as a field biologist with Colorado State University. Field Observations: the mature white pines in question, which were approved to remain, are now much more exposed to westerly winds due to the fact that the previously existing stand of deciduous and coniferous trees have been removed along with a significant amount of earth cut per the approved grades to make way for the Hotel/Indoor Water Park. The previously existing stand of trees and earth previously at a greater elevation had provided protection from the generally, prevailing westerly winds from the time the trees were seedlings to their present age. Even though the Tree Protection Detail (see L7.04, #4 of the Site Details) required for no disturbance of the earth within the drip line of each individual tree's canopy, the root system of the trees in question extended well beyond the drip line (this is not uncommon for the species), and above the approved grades around the Holtz House. The cutting of earth to the approved grades has exposed and cut into a portion of some of the tree's root systems. Potentially more of the root systems will be cut and exposed, as the cutting to the approved grades has yet to be completed. TOWN OF QUEENSBURY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT November 8, 2005 No one, regardless of their expertise, can guarantee the trees will fall due to wind -throw any time in the near future. However, the probability of one or more of the trees succumbing to wind -throw is increased due to the site development to date. Is the increased rate of susceptibility to wind -throw significantly increased? To help answer the question, I offer the following: 1) Even though the Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) root system is wide spreading and moderately deep, it only has a vestige of a taproot (if a well -developed taproot was characteristic of white pines, I would be less concerned. 2) The soil for the entire site is mostly deep well -drained sandy soil with a very small percentage of boulder and cobble -sized rocks. 3) Increased canopy weight due to accumulated wet snow or iced -over trees resulting from a freezing rain could increase their susceptibility to wind -throw. 4) The very large white pines closest to the Coach House Restaurant whose root systems have been cut and exposed are much more susceptible to decline (due to disease, insects, and decay) and eventual death (commonly 3-7 years), resulting in a greatly increased susceptibility to wind -throw. As noted before, cutting to the final approved grade around these trees has yet to be completed. 5) Soil compaction: due to the earthwork directly adjacent to the remaining tree line, the soil has been compacted to some degree. However, the sandy well -drained soils that exist are least susceptible to compaction, and any decline of the trees due to compaction is much less a concern than those whose root systems have been cut and exposed. Pros and Cons of removing those trees most susceptible to future wind -throw: Cons: 1) Loss of very large mature white pines. 2) A minimal amount of the existing screening will be removed. Pros: 1) Potential damage to NIMO transmission lines eliminated. 2) Potential damage to the new Hotel/Water Park eliminated. 3) Potential injury or loss of life eliminated. 4) After the earthwork around the knoll is completed, the replanting of healthy young trees ideally suited for the location will result in the development of a healthy strong root system, with their canopy screening more of the top of the hotel than the existing mature white pines, whose canopies are above the proposed hotel height. I hope the information I have provided helps you with your decisions regarding this matter. 2 Cra Brown -Oct. PB Submissions Page 1 From: Mike Shaw To: Craig Brown Date: 09/27/2004 1:31:12 PM Subject: Oct. PB Submissions rrr Craig please refer to my comments on the above subject. Sp 12-2004 Econolodge , I see this is a modified plan but do not know what is being modified. SP 61-2004 Grear Escape , All Sanitary Sewer mains ,pump stations and easements should be shown on the plans with notes of possible conflicts. Town will need 24 hour 365 day excess to the Rt 9 Pump Station. Sp 62-2004 Richard Mayo , This proposed restaurant is currently not within any Town Sanitary Sewer District. The County road project will include new sewer mains for Main St. This project is to begin in 2005 with completions in 2006. : SP 13-2004 David Menter, Wakitia , This parcel is within the Rt9 Sanitary Sewer District. Sewer connection plans will have to be reviewed and permitted by the Wastewater Department. Please note this on the Plans in Bold Print .1 Mike Shaw Deputy Director Queensberry WasteWater Dept. 823 Corinth Road Queensbury, NY. 12804 (518)745-5579 Phone (5182 798-3320 Fax E-mail : mikes@queensbury.net Web : www.queensbury.net September 15, 2004 Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator Department of Community Development Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 Re: SP 13 — 2004 Lands of Wakita Motel Proposed Site Plan Modification Dear Craig: ( <�' i ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP SFP 1 0n4, TOWN Ot vi iSAURY BUILD Pi4; =;,<r; CODE As per our discussion on this date and on behalf of project applicant, David Menter, I respectfully submit this letter of explanation to accompany an application for a site plan modification for the referenced project. In May of this year Mr. Menter received site plan approval for construction of a 3-story, 85 unit hotel on the lands of the existing Wakita Motel. Upon further review and construction budgeting of the design as approved, the owner is considering raising the elevation of the hotel site in an effort to lessen the amount of 'cut' soils with resulting transportation costs and truck traffic. In addition there is a very slight modification to the building footprint resulting in an increase of approximately 330 sf. New impervious area will increase by approximately 500 sf due to the new footprint and a slightly longer driveway. This 500 sf increase compares to the 80,000 sf (or 0.6%) of the new impervious area designed for in the stonnwater management plan. As it was your opinion that this should be handled as a site plan modification, Mr. Menter is submitting application documents (18 sets) consisting of the following: • Town of Queensbury Application for Site Plan Review • Revised Grading & Utility Plan, Prepared by EDP, dated 9/14/04 Based on the nature of the revision .... raising the hotel finish floor by 5% it was suggested that Plan Sheet 2, Grading and Utility Plan, was the only plan sheet of significant change and thus the one that should be submitted as part of this request. It is my understanding that a committee routinely reviews applications for completeness and we will be notified if further application information will be required. 900 Route 146, Clifton Park, New York 12065 phone (518) 371-7621 - fax (518) 371-9540 6 Page 2 Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator September 15, 2004 The revisions to the grading plan result primarily from the raising of the building by 5' and the movement of the building and associated parking by some 5-10' to the north and 15' easterly. The sectional views provided will show a revised relationship of the building to the profile. From a cut and clearing standpoint the raising of the building will result in slightly less of an impact on the cut slopes on the southerly side of the site. Due to the fact that no changes to the design components of the stormwater management plan, the landscape plan or the lighting plan will result we are recommending use of the existing approved plans. Procedurally this requires us to request a wavier from supplying revised copies of these plans with this modification application. Note that the stormwater management components are adequately sized to accommodate the revised grading plan, no additional planting will be recommended based on the revisions and no revisions to the lighting plan are necessary to remain in compliance with the Town's lighting standards. Mr. Menter will be delivering the required application documents on this date in an effort to be placed on the first October meeting agenda. It is his hope to gain a site plan modification approval for this relatively minor revision so that the project can proceed to construction as soon as possible. Thank you for your continued assistance with this project. Sincerely, �A Dennis MacElroy P.E. Associate Cc: David Menter Jon Lapper 900 Route 146, Clifton Park, New York 12065 phone (518) 371-7621 - fax (518) 371-9540 10/20/2004 11:26 5187867299 CT MALE ASSOCIATES PAGE 02/09 • C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, PC. U�JW50 Century Hill Drive, P.O. Box 727, Latham, New York 12110-0727�r �� 518,786.7400 FAX518.786.7299 ctmole@ctmale.com �' 1!•\11 1 October 20, 2004 Mr. Craig Brown Zoning Administrator, Code Compliance Officer Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, New York 12804-5902 Re: SP 13-2004 Menter - Lands of Wakita Motel, Site Plan Modifications Dear Mr. Brown: We have reviewed the submission package for the modifications of the above referenced project. The package consisted of the Site Plan Review Application, Short Environmental Assessment Form, Sheet 2 of the Plan Set (last modified September 14, 2004) and cover letter from the consultant, Dennis MacElroy, dated September 15, 2004. The drawings were prepared by the Environmental Design Partnership, LLP. Based on our review we offer the following comments: Stormwater 1. The new elevation of the building and associated grading results in an increase of 500 sf or less than 1% of the total proposed impervious area on the site. It is reasonable to assume that this will not affect the stormwater calculations in the stormwater management plan previously approved by C.T. Male Associates, P.C. Gradi Z 2. Two spot elevations appear incorrect based upon the new site grading. The 118.5' spot elevation on the eastern corner of the parking area, and the 122.5' spot elevation between the two handicapped parking spaces at the entrance to the building should both be changed. 3. The slope of the parking lot near catch basin #1 approaches 10%. This slope should be reduced to reduce the possibility of car doors swinging open and striking the adjacent vehicle_ 4. The proposed grading along the north side of the retaining wall is in error. For example, the 118' contour is shown adjacent to the 10C contour. The proposed top and bottom of wall elevations should be shown on the plan. 5. The entrance drives are steep (approximately 12%). During winter conditions the entrance drive to the west (to Route 9) may be icy. The drive to Round Pond Road faces south, which should help address the icing issue. Architecture & Buliding Systems Engineering • ChAl Engineering • Environmental Services • Survey & Land Information Services 10/20/2004 11:26 5187867299 CT MALE ASSOCIATES C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. October20, 2004 Mr. Craig Brown Page 2 If you have any questions related to our comments, feel free to call our office. Sincerely, C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. r�l' '�. � T. Mines Houston, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: Applicant PAGE 03/09 kip aj1 15W062I2 MnkprOJeMi Pte Pin UW4M3 tef W4.W20...b.dm r ' Town of Queensbury PIA Board 10/26/04: &enter, Modification SITE PLAN NO.13-2004 - DAVID MENTER, WAKITA MOTEL, MODIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SP 13-04 INTRODUCED BY: Robert Vollaro WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION: SECONDED BY: Richard Sanford WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Modification - relocation of the hotel and all improvements approximately 30 feet to the northeast and to raise the development site and building by five (5) feet; also proposes a 330 sq. ft. addition to the building. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/04; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 10/26/04; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of October 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: None cc: Dennis MacElroy