Chairman Doyle called the March 28, 2007 meeting to order at 7:30pm and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman Doyle reviewed the agenda.

NEW BUSINESS:

Rick Diamond, HDB Ballston Spa, LLC, 260 Ballston Ave for Site Plan Review {concept} for the construction of a Rite Aid. Tim O’Brien of BL Companies was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. O’Brien said that the proposal is located at the corner of Ballston Ave and Route 67 and consists of approximately 3.7 acres. The proposed building will consist of 14,673 sq. ft. and 86 parking spaces which will include three curb cuts. The north most entrance is located on Ballston Ave which will have a full ingress/egress, the second entrance will have a right in and right out only and the third one would be out onto Route 50 and would be a right turn only. Mr. O’Brien said that the existing site is 54% impervious and the remaining site will be landscaped with existing lands reserved for future development. Mr. O’Brien said that truck access will be incoming onto Route 50 traveling around the back and then exiting onto Route 50. Mr. O’Brien said that the store does propose to have a drive-thru showing 12 cars stacking on plans; normally having only two. The proposal is showing a three-bay dumpster one bay is for reusable containers for shipping, cardboard and trash. Mr. O’Brien said that variances are being requested for size of the parking spaces of 9’ x 18’; code requires 10’ x 20’. Mr. Doyle said that code is 9’ x 18’

Mr. Cwalinski asked the applicant the need for a parking variance when there is green space for additional parking. Mr. O’Brien said that 89 spaces is enough parking for a store this size and may even exceed the use. Mr. Cwalinski asked for documentation to support this statement. Mr. O’Brien will supply that documentation.

Mr. Rhodes said that the code requires documentation and also to show that it can be built in the future, but what is being asked for is banked parking not a variance from parking.

Mr. O’Brien said that there is an area reserved for storm water and the septic system.

Mr. Rhodes said that there is a point of clarification that the truck access on Route 50. Mr. Rhodes said that it is actually Ballston Ave.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if the drive-thru requires two stacking spaces per drive-thru lane, plus ten additional stacking spaces and asked if those requirements have been met. Mr. O’Brien replied two and then there is enough for one lane; Mr. Rhodes replied 16 total.

Mr. O’Brien said that one drive-thru lane is for drop-off only and the other is for pick-up.

Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to list the other variances:

Signage

Parking; number of spaces, size of spaces

Minimum front setback for parking (11’)

Maximum front yard setback

Maximum side yard setback

Mr. Rhodes asked the reason for not constructing the building to that maximum building setback line on Ballston Ave. Mr. Rhodes said that was one of the fundamental intents of the Design Standards. Mr. O’Brien said that the layout of this particular store to bring it forward would make it difficult for traffic to get in and out of the site and also moving it forward does not work for the interior layout. Mr. O’Brien said the retail section is set up the inside for customer service.

Mr. Rhodes said the proposed access is consistent with the approved transportation plan which discusses concepts of realigning and making improvements at the V-Corners intersection because it’s a safety issue.

Mr. O’Brien said that it is pushed back to allow for improvements. Mr. Rhodes said that this may change the way the site is organized and look at the best beneficial site layout as being proposed. Mr. O’Brien said that this plan has just initiated and are seeking comments.

Mr. VanVorst asked the reason for three exits on the site. Mr. O’Brien said that because of the location of the exit of the intersection. Mr. Doyle has a concern for the number of curb cuts. Mr. Doyle said that the Route 67 study needs to be taken into consideration which indicates there could be a round-about at that area; it recommends a round-about. Mr. Doyle said that it gives the two entrances the one on Route 50 and the most easterly on Ballston Ave. a problem. Mr. O’Brien said that it will be looked at.

Mr. Cwalinski asked what types of trucks make deliveries at the proposed site. Mr. O’Brien said that the UB-67 which is shown and smaller box trucks with one delivery a week with off peak hours.

Mr. Rhodes said that this will change significantly once the Route 67 corridor study is integrated with the proposal. Mr. Rhodes said that there is an approved intended Transportation Plan; bounded on the Route 67 corridor study. Mr. Rhodes said that the improvements that were recommended is what the Town has adopted and wants all projects to migrate into the plans. Mr. Rhodes said that there are two round-about’s that are be proposed and one of the concepts is to create one leg of the intersection to feed this proposed commercial development.

Mr. Rhodes asked for the traffic study to look at the capacity and safety issues which identified four times higher accident rates than other intersections along Route 67. Mr. Rhodes said principally because of the squeue geometry by creating three additional curb cuts assumes; this would become worse.

Mr. Rhodes has a concern with Ballston Ave having more traffic flow. Mr. Rhodes wants to look at potential cut through generated from large trucks which could be a problem.

Mr. Rhodes said that the technical issues in compliance with the Design Standards.

Parking spaces are 9’ x 18’

Sidewalks should carry across all the driveways

Any building over 75’ should have two entryways; window, façade to be included (Town Planner to give guidance on architectural and interior planning at least 5% of the paved area need some interior planning).

Location of trees

Banked parking; typical zoning regulations are far excessive for shared uses (show study)

Lighting

Traffic

Mr. Doyle has a concern for traffic at this intersection with traffic between 7:00am and 5:00pm with the school being to the west of this property.

Ms. Eddy asked the applicant to plan for a service road to the adjacent property to the south side.

Mr. Doyle said that the sign proposals do not meet the Design Standards.

Mr. Rhodes said that wording is internal access roads not service road it may be public or private; it’s likely to be private to connect to adjacent commercial uses to be a supplemental street system. (walkable, graded pattern). Mr. O’Brien asked if the adjacent landowners agree to this request. Mr. Rhodes said "you would terminate it and stub it." Mr. Rhodes said that is why the site organization is so critical to make sure the access road works with surrounding properties.

Mr. Doyle said that sidewalks are a consideration in this area and to leave space for this in the future.

Mr. Rhodes said when returning to Rite Aid suggest rearranging the floor plan so the building can be built closer to the street. Mr. O’Brien said that the interior is a fixed feature of the store. Mr. Rhodes suggested a mirror image and put the main entry to the rear. Mr. O’Brien said that would place the drive-thru in front of the building; facing the street. Mr. O’Brien said that the front of the building is the architectural feature. Mr. Rhodes asked is it easier to change the exterior façade or the interior floor plan. Mr. O’Brien said that exterior façade. Mr. Rhodes said that was the suggestion to mirror the building and put the architectural features on both ends. Mr. Rhodes said when looking at this plan the back end is not broken up with good Design Standards and will need to be added.

Mr. Rhodes said that the drive-thru can be accommodated suggesting departing from that entrance to bring them in from the parking area unless a concern with speeds through the drive-thru. Mr. O’Brien said that there is a problem per the code for stacking which could back up into the parking lot. Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to show standards.

Mr. VanVorst asked the area to the south (showing proposed future use) will that be a building. Mr. O’Brien replied yes, but there are no definite plans of what type of use. Mr. VanVorst said "as a Board we need to have at least a footprint of that building so that we know how much space, parking space and so forth green and what percentage."

Mr. Doyle said that should be incorporated into the septic system design, storm water design.

Mr. Voss said that most of Mr. Rhodes comments are what has been focused on; Design Standards what will affect the facility and site layout. Mr. Voss suggested that the applicant submit a detailed narrative addressing specific areas on the Design Standards that are in the ordinance. Mr. Voss said that this site has a concern with traffic.

Ms. Cyr asked the applicant to provide a Traffic Impact Study as did Mr. Rhodes. Ms. Cyr said that a lighting plan needs to be provided. Ms. Cyr asked about the proposed sub surface waste water disposal system; the applicant recommends that it be a surface treatment system of the discharge off the site. Mr. O’Brien said that it will be a standard subsurface. Ms. Cyr reiterated the concerns with traffic and the impact at the intersection.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there should be plan for dry sewers. Mr. Doyle said that a dry sewer should be brought out to the Route 50 area.

Application tabled.

SSP Development Corporation, McCrea Hill Road for a Minor Subdivision. MaryElizabeth Slevin, Esq. was here on behalf of SSP Development Corporation which owns the Corporate Technology Park from which the minor subdivision is being proposed. Ms. Slevin said that lot #1(south side of Route 50) consists of 8 acres with surrounding established businesses and undeveloped parcels. Ms. Slevin said the proposal is to divide the 8 acre lot into approximately two lots of 3.13 acres and 4.99 acres. The proposal also includes a temporary grading easement and a permanent easement for the utility across the front of the 3.16 acre parcel. Ms. Slevin said that wetlands have been shown on the map.

Ms. Slevin said that the purpose of the subdivision is to split the 8 acre parcel to allow for Fairley Sports Extra Innings to proceed with their site plan.

Mr. Cwalinski asked about the possible expansion. Ms. Slevin indicated that Mr. Gay is present for the site plan application and could address those questions at that time.

Mr. Doyle said that the proposal divides the lots so the wetlands on the western lot provides enough room for build out; yet provides a nice area of the interior lot (eastern lot).

Mr. Cwalinski asked the purpose of the grading easement. Ms. Slevin said it is to allow completion of grading on site; to make sure that there is no adverse impact on with the remaining lot. Mr. Rhodes said to construct transitions.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the Board is handling the minor subdivision and site plan revision as two separate complete applications. Mr. Doyle replied yes. Mr. Rhodes asked if there are some requirements during the site design that requires an adjustment to the property line. Mr. Reilly said that Ms. Slevin will have to return to the Board. Mr. Rhodes suggested that the time for approval for this application would concurrent with site plan approval. Mr. Doyle is in agreement and explained to the Board that there would be an identified parcel before that process is started. Mr. Rhodes said that a parcel has been identified and if the requirements would require and enlargement of that parcel; rather than a lot line to do concurrent review. Mr. Rhodes said that final approval would be contingent on needing an adjustment to that parcel.

Mr. Reilly reiterated that the application before the Board is for subdivision and the applicant would have to concur with the preliminary approval at this time. Mr. Doyle asked Ms. Slevin if this would work for your client at this time. Ms. Slevin said that obviously would want to make sure that the development works for the purchaser and that the Board is satisfied.

Mr. Doyle opened the public hearing 8:07pm

Mr. Doyle closed public hearing 8:09pm.

Application tabled.

Fairley Sports Training, LLC, McCrea Hill Road for Site Plan Review. John Gay of Northeast Land Surveyors was present to present the case to the Board. Mr. Gay said that the plan has been submitted to the Board and the Town Engineer and has taken the comments from CT Male and incorporated into a new set of drawings; comments were minor. Mr. Gay said that the storm water management still needs to be completed on this project. Mr. Gay said that the new plans and comments will be available for Board members. Mr. Rhodes asked to route the plans through Michelle.

Mr. Gay said that the subdivision was based on the building and the building usage. Mr. Gay said that Joe Fairley is present to discuss the inside of the proposed building and Mike Munter, builder to discuss the architecture.

Mr. Fairley, proposed owner is present to discuss the building which is designed as an indoor sports complex for baseball and softball activity; training facility self service baseball activity and part retail.

Mr. Fairley said that the proposed building will include vertical training tunnels which run about 15’ x 70 – 90’ in length an instructor and child goes in and goes through instruction or train on their own. Mr. Fairley said that there are six and two in the rear. Mr. Fairley said that there is a fixed part of the facility which has tapered concrete to it; traditional batting cage design brought into this century. Mr. Fairley said that there is a retail part of the facility with a three prong approach which includes, training instruction, self service and retail area. The retail area is designed to provide local communities with product. The proposed area to the south east will include a party room including two restrooms.

Mr. Fairley said that Extra Innings is a national franchise and has been in existence for about four years with 40 sites in the nation existing and continuing to grow; strictly dedicated to baseball and softball activity. Mr. Fairley said that there are expectations of enough activity for future expansion of the building.

Ms. Eddy asked if there will be a kitchen facility. Mr. Fairley replied no, there is a small vending area which includes sports drinks.

Mr. VanVorst asked since already owning the franchise, who will own the building. Mr. Fairley replied it will be owned by Magic Real Estate Services which is compiled of all his children’s names. Mr. Rhodes said that "you will have to pay your kid’s rent." Mr. Fairley said that this is an owner operated concept

Ms. Cristy said the proposal is for an indoor and outdoor professional baseball and softball instruction, but stated it was indoors. Mr. Fairley said that the outdoors refers to when space is rented; instructor to take clinic on the road. Ms. Eddy said that the business has off-site, the building does not. Mr. Fairley replied yes.

Mr. VanVorst made a reference to facility very similar to the proposed in Halfmoon and asked the applicant if there is enough business locally to support the two facilities. Mr. Fairley replied "absolutely." Mr. Fairley said that an Extra Innings franchise looks for a population of two hundred thousand for support.

There have been 160 travel teams in the capital district developed in the last four years in the eastern NY travel baseball league.

Approached by interested parties in Hudson, NY (Columbia County) and want to participate and schedule time.

Mr. Fairley said that "these communities are very hungry for both baseball and softball activity."

Ms. Fairley said that the unique aspect of Extra Innings is membership; schedulable as private.

Ms. Eddy asked about stairs; "where do they go." Mr. Fairley said that the stair entry is partially accessed through the retail and goes up to a second floor. Ms. Eddy asked "what is going on with the second floor." Mr. Fairley said that the second floor will encompass storage. Mr. Fairley indicated that the code did not allow for this type of second floor storage it will be brought to the same class as the assembly and will be shown on the revised plan; including another two sets of accessible stairs and an elevator. Mr. Fairley said that there are "mirror bathrooms upstairs to mirror the bathrooms downstairs."

Mr. Fairley would like to utilize the remaining square footage in the second floor that is not needed for storage; possibly for offices. There are other interested parties such as individual that offer strength and conditioning classes.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the parking is set up for this proposal. Mr. Fairley said that the parking exceeds the code to allow for the possible expansion.

Ms. Cyr indicated all the comments were technical in nature and will be addressed or have been addressed.

Mr. Gay said that the existing site has gravity sewers that head down toward Curtis Industrial Park including force mains that travel back to service the subdivision across the road. Mr. Gay said that there is 24" HDPE storm sewer existing on the street.

Mr. Gay said that the original wetlands were delineated by Clough Harbour and North Country Agrological.

Mr. Gay said that SSP wanted to reserve an easement in the front because the telephone and electric exist in that are presently but more importantly it would be an access for sanitary sewer (gravity).

Mr. Gay indicated that sheet #2 shows the proposed 19,800sq. ft. building showing possible extension. There have been 62 parking spaces provided and feel it is excessive based on the number of (drop-off’s) as opposed to parking. Mr. Rhodes asked if this parking data will be provided. Mr. Gay said that it can be provided. Mr. Rhodes asked to have it include the expected uses above. Mr. Rhodes said that it can articulate the number of training personnel, sales personnel, secretarial and the number of occupants using it. Mr. Rhodes asked the similarity to the Halfmoon site. Mr. Fairley replied within 2,000sq. ft.

Mr. Cwalinski asked if the possibility of teams traveling by bus. Mr. Fairley replied no because travel teams are self funded.

Ms. Eddy asked how many kids are on a team. Mr. Fairley replied 12 active for any one activity or up to 20 on a roster. Ms. Eddy said that when traveling from Hudson there would be five to six cars. Mr. Fairley said that when the leagues are active they travel in two to three cars.

Mr. Fairley said that the Extra Innings facility in Middleton Massachusetts has been used as a model for building layout and parking.

Mr. Gay said the intent would not be to need this many parking spaces and would like to consider banking either the whole lot or half of the lot.

Mr. Gay said a 6" main to be installed on McCrea Hill Road and continuing the 6" water main for a sprinkler system inside the proposed building. Mr. Gay said that the proposal also will include a 6" PVC sanitary sewer line placing a "y" past the manhole.

Mr. Gay said the plan includes both the building restriction lines and parking restriction lines.

Mr. Gay said that a topographic survey has been performed on site; including wetlands. Mr. Gay said that the concept is to run across the parking lot a 1% pitch which flows to a grass swale will carry to the storm water detention area. Mr. Gay said that the grading has been adjusted on site. Mr. Gay said that a berm has been constructed on the uphill side and have created a swale which has been created for easement for grading. Mr. Gay said the finished floor elevation has been established of 404.5 and can balance the cuts and fills on the site; to alleviate importing and exporting of materials.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the storm water basin for Specialty Silicones is oversized. Mr. Gay said it was only developed to the buildings that have been constructed. Mr. Rhodes asked if there was extra. Mr. Gay replied there was no extra. Mr. Rhodes would like to keep the storm water so it is not being treated on site. Mr. Gay said that the engineering was originally completed by Clough Harbour and each individual site was done by other engineering firms.

Mr. Gay said that erosion sedimentation control provides for the area of disturbance containing silt fences that protect the upper soils from entering the construction area.

Mr. Rhodes said that there is an interception of the natural storm drainage with silt fence and until the swale in constructed. Ms. Cyr said that the drainage questions were addressed by asking the applicant to prepare a Storm Water Management Plan.

Mr. Gay said that the landscaping plan shows (between the walkway and building) Euonymus, Rose of Sharon, Barberry and Juniper (lower versions). The other areas would include Red Maples, Blue Spruce. Mr. Gay said that from Route 50, you can only see about 20% up on the building. Ms. Eddy asked if that includes any of the arches. Mr. Gay said that it may include the top part of the arch about half way up the building.

Mr. Gay said that the lighting location plan has been provided, but still need to provide diagrams.

Mr. Rhodes asked for an explanation of the caliper sizes of the specimen trees. Mr. Gay said that it is bald material and the "cg" material should have a number. The deciduous trees would be 2 1/2" caliper.

The Blue Spruce would be 8ft. and would grow 1ft. a year.

Mr. Cwalinski said that the landscaping plan requires for every 100ft. of frontage a Norway maple.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the berm could be installed to intercept the storm water. Mr. Gay replied no because the ball of the tree in the wintertime does not have enough protection to survive.

A further discussion was held on placement of berm on property.

Mr. Gay said that the proposed sign will consider of composite (carved).

Mr. Rhodes said that this western façade said that it will be useful to have additional landscaping to break up that long face; near the berm (higher lands). Mr. Gay said that there is a 30’ building restriction line and will not be interrupting on that side. Ms. Eddy asked the applicant to soften all the utility boxes.

Mr. Cwalinski asked what type of delivery trucks will be anticipated. Mr. Fairley replied UPS trucks.

Mike Munter, proposed builder has been helping with the architecture and design of the proposal. Mr. Munter indicated that the proposed building will be tall for the clearances inside for batting and pitching. Mr. Munter said that this proposal is one of the average size buildings on McCrea Hill Road.

Mr. Munter said that the elevation of the floor will be dropped down will significantly help from being so overwhelming.

Mr. Munter said that the proposal has added detail which includes the arch located in the back side of the stadiums or that are nestled in the Hamlets and Burroughs within the cities. Mr. Munter said to metal siding was incorporated to alleviate the size of the wall arch pattern. The arches would be built out of a different color and texture material; possibly stucco material, composite metal panel with different texture color and texture. This would make the building stand out and give the building reveal; so it is not one contiguous wall.

Mr. Doyle asked if those arches are inset. Mr. Munter said the arches will be applied beyond the regular building line.

Ms. Eddy asked how deep. Mr. Munter replied a few inches; 2" – 3".

Mr. Rhodes asked why it was not carried down the front parking along McCrea Hill Road.

Mr. Munter said that the way the building was sitting on the property when traveling south on Route 50.

Mr. Fairley said that time has been spent observing driving and parking on Route 50 and then coming into McCrea Hill Road and observing exact site lines and what will be seen. Mr. Fairley said when past that first arch around the northern corner once entering McCrea Hill Road is the Mayflower building and when you see the corner of Extra Innings you see the arch (top of arches).

Mr. Rhodes asked if the site line from Route 50 will have that differentiation. Mr. Fairley said that it is shown on the plan. Ms. Eddy said that "it is difficult for her because she said that it is not hitting on the building because she cannot see the arch." Ms. Eddy asked if the signage will be seen from Route 50. Mr. Fairley replied yes. Mr. Rhodes said that the corner will be seen from Route 50. Ms. Eddy asked if corner with the sign be illuminated. Mr. Fairley has no plans to illuminate the sign. Mr. Gay said that the sign will be illuminated. Ms. Eddy reiterated the sign on McCrea Hill Road. Mr. Gay replied yes.

Mr. Fairley said that this type of facility is a destination not a drive by.

Ms. Eddy asked if the proposed color pallet will remain the same.

Mr. Rhodes said that windows are shown on the second floor only on the eastern elevation. Mr. Munter said that at this time, on the northern elevation this module with a stairwell elevator shaft and will be no need for windows. Mr. Rhodes said that if that whole area is going to be office complex, now is the time to integrate some windows under that western elevation which would help "break things" up. Mr. Fairley said that the windows cannot be on the western side of the building because the building will only be two full stories.

Ms. Cristy asked the hours of operation. Mr. Fairley said that Extra Innings is proposing 10:00am to 10:00pm. Ms. Eddy asked how many days a week. Mr. Fairley replied seven days a week.

Mr. Voss agrees with the landscaping and would not suggest illuminating the siding.

Mr. Johnson asked about the review of the traffic study; turning lane. Mr. Doyle said that as part of this complex, the Board should take a look at traffic. Mr. Doyle said as far as the turning lane, the Town Council is in the state of bonding it and the traffic turning lane will be installed this year. Mr. Doyle said the problem is until traffic problem is solved on Route 50, the occupancy of the building is going to be a concern. There needs to be coordination with the turning lane construction, building construction so that they are both completed at the same time. Mr. Rhodes would urge the applicant to provide a Level of Service Study of what happens when the project opens. Mr. Rhodes said that the DGEIS that was created for Specialty Silicones is indicating the next project is going to trip the standards that require mitigation. Mr. Rhodes said that if it is a small level of service degradation the Planning Board should take it under advisement if it increases the delay one or two seconds. Mr. Rhodes said that it does not mean that the business cannot open, but the Planning Board and State needs to decide whether this is something that needs to tabled until the construction is complete or if is going to be something we can live with while construction is occurring; construction on the roadway.

Mr. Rhodes said that it is very common that public improvement projects get delayed for many years and as a Board should be fair to the applicant and schedule two items, your project and the public improvement project so a decision can be made what the impacts will be if a public improvement project does not move forward. Mr. Doyle said that this information is available at Clough Harbour and was before the Planning Board two to three years ago when the last building was constructed.

Mr. Reilly asked Ms. Slevin if she was present for the amendment of PUDD which was in front of the Town Board. Mr. Reilly asked if there was a consensus that this does trip the warrant and that left hand turn lane needs to be constructed. Ms. Slevin said that that is not the case and does believe that they recognize that the appropriation has been made on the local road program to provide for funding for this turning lane and at consequence there is a coordination issue. The study was prepared by Clough Harbour and was estimated on square footage space. The build out of the park is substantially different than the build out that was contemplated when the PUD legislation was put in place. Mr. Rhodes suggested traffic counts and a level of service analysis on the intersection and the numbers will be far more conservative than what is on the ground.

Mr. Doyle reiterated that a traffic study needs to be completed.

Mr. Doyle indicated that the Town is working through a bonding process.

Mr. Fairley said that he spoke with Clough Harbour and said that it ran in opposition to what their traffic study said. Mr. Fairley said that there was no data to support traffic for the hours. Mr. Doyle said peak hours. Mr. Rhodes asked the applicant to have that information documented.

Application tabled.

Corrections to minutes: Page 2) 2nd para; strike "said increasing" change to "asked to decrease", strike "pedestrians" to "vehicles", strike "down" add "over", strike "the" add "to make the" strike "will make it". Page 3) para; 2 strike "by", para; 6 strike "in" add "SEQR in". Page 4) para; 2 strike "to", add "on the plan" add "and". Page 7) page; 7 strike "and" add "an" change to "encouraged", Page 8) para; 5 add "is", para;6 strike "it" add "variances". Page 9) para; 1 change to "softens", para; 5 strike candle it in the wind", change to "handle it with", para; 7 strike "is what" change to "with what", Page 10 para 10 strike "the" add "what". Page 12) para; 14 strike "striped" change to striping". Page 14) para; 2 strike "which is" add "with", para; 4 strike "by" add "for", "a". Page 15) para; 3 add "a", para; 4 add "to", para; 5 strike "Elgin" add "Eljen". Page 16) para; 10 add "worth". Enclose updated CT Male letter dated February 5, 2007.

MOTION: Mr. Rhodes made a motion to accept the February 28, 2007 minutes as amended. Mr. VanVorst seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned at 9:16pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Michelle L. Dingman

Enc.