A/GFTC.06.28.99ADI RONDACK-G LENS FALLS TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL
WASHINGTON COUNTY MUNICIPAL CENTER, A-204
383 UPPER BROADWAY, FORT EDWARD, NY 12828
Phone: (518) 746-2199
Ms. Laura Moore, Planning Asst.
Queensbury Dept. of Community Dev
Queensbury Town Hall
Queensbury, NY 12804
Dear Ms. Moore:
Fax: (518)746-2441
Email: Aaftcftol.com
June 28, 1999
Re: Site Plan 32-99
(Sleep Inn) Review
In response to your Planning Board's request, A/GFTC has reviewed the materials that you
provided regarding the proposed Sleep Inn project on Route 9. Our comments are as follows:
1) The area around Sweet and Weeks Rd. has been designated as a Priority Investigation
Location (PIQ by NYSDOT. Over the period from 111/91 through 7/31/97 (6yrs 7mos) there
were 46 reported crashes, thirteen of which occurred at Weeks with five of these involving right
angle accidents. NYSDOT's records further indicate that the frequency of accidents has
increased since the Wal-Mart construction.
To help address this situation, NYSDOT plans to install a traffic signal at Sweet Rd. and will
extend tt extend the two northbound travel lanes approx. 295 ft. past Sweet Rd. as a part
of its current Rte 9 pavement project While this will help the situation at Sweet, the proposed
new curb cut for Sleep Inn just south of Weeks will add to the potential number of turning
movements that can take place in this short stretch and make northbound turning movements
from Weeks more difficult.
Although the amount of new traffic that will be generated by this 82 unit motel is relatively
small, NYSDOT needs to be informed and given an opportunity to comment since it is within
the limits of their current pavement rehab project.
2) The best traffic mitigation for this project would be for the new development and the existing
Ponderosa to share a single access point to Rte 9 at the existing Wal-Mart traffic signal. In lieu
— -- of uii'S, a ie p—p-sal'cwe3�-f2a+i',:r��-w!?i6h-in&!::de- site access/egress from Pte 9 allowing-
right-tum only movements for exiting vehicles; secondary access to the site from Sweet Rd.;
and an internal parking connector to the Ponderosa lot , should help to mitigate the overall
traffic impact of the new development. These measures should reasonably accommodate site
access demands.
Most of the traffic problems with the project area relate to the large number of existing curb cuts
located on the west side of Rte. 9. Although this proposal will not help to improve that situation,
its not likely to make matters significantly worse either. It does, however, point to the need for
an adopted access management plan for this corridor that will help consolidate some the
existing curb cuts and set standards for new ones. Given the amount of potentially developable
property in this corridor (esp. on the west side of Rte 9), such a plan is important to the area's
long term growth.
Would existing zoning allow for future commercial expansion into the 7.13+/- acre parcel
behind the new development? And would such an expansion permit access directly to Rte 9?
These comments assume that such an expansion with Rte 9 access is not possible or under
consideration at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please let me know if you require any adclkoirial
information.
Sincerely,
tek
Staff Dir.