Town of Kinderhook

Zoning Board of Appeals

February 6, 2014

Minutes

Approved

The Meeting of the Town of Kinderhook Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, February 6, 2014, beginning at 7:03pm at the Kinderhook Town Hall, 3211 Church Street, Valatie, NY. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman and the Roll was taken by the Secretary.

1. Call Roll

Present: Excused:

Greg Allen, Chairman James Haggerty

Peter Bujanow

Keith St. John

Regina Rose

Matthew Griesemer, Acting Town Attorney Absent:

Nataly Dee, Secretary None

Also in attendance Marcel St. Onge, Edwin and Christian Simonsen, and Barbara Reina of the Register Star.

B. Correspondence

1. Review of Minutes: November 7, 2013

2. Review of Minutes: December 5, 2013

A motion to approve the minutes from the November meeting was made by Mr. St John. Motion seconded by Mr. Bujanow. All in favor; none opposed. Motion carried; minutes approved.

A motion to approve the minutes from the December meeting was made by Ms. Rose. Motion seconded by Mr. St. John. All in favor; none opposed. Motion carried; minutes approved.

3. Correspondence received from Alan Grout as a result of the notices to neighbors for the Public Hearing.

The letter submitted by Mr. Grout addressing his concerns about traffic on the section of Route 9 in question was reviewed by the board. It will be entered in to the record as part of the Public Hearing.

Public Hearing(s):

1. 7:00pm - Primax Properties, LLC/Dollar General, US Route 9, Valatie (Tax Map ID # 23.-1-35.210) for two Variances for a proposed retail business:

1) a reduction in the number of parking spaces as required by Town Code, from 72 to 35; 2) the use of sliding glass doors at the entrance to the proposed establishment.

Mr. O’Brien was invited to address the Board. Mr. O’Brien addressed the board and displayed proposed site plans of the project. He drew the board’s attention to the location of the proposed Dollar General, stating that the lot is in front of the Ole Kinderhook Self Storage and across Route 9 from Golden Harvest. Mr. O’Brien noted several items regarding the site plans that are in compliance with the Town Code. Trees over 8” in diameter have been surveyed and marked and will have an affect subsequent landscaping. The building elevations are shown. Mr. O’Brien pointed out the sliding glass doors at the entrance to the proposed building which is the reason for one of the variances being requested. He noted that the plan is to have two sets of sliding glass doors separated by a vestibule. Sliding glass doors are more energy efficient, safer, and increase ADA compliance. There is a safety feature that allows for the doors to be pushed open. Mr. O’Brien noted another sit plan rendering that will be presented to the Planning Board which shows shutters instead of awnings on the windows. He then addressed the other variance being requested for the parking. He noted the parking requirements as stipulated by the Code: 1 per 100 sq ft of retail sales area. The proposed building is approximately 7,200 square feet of retail sales area; therefore 72 parking spaces would be required. The variance being requested is to allow 35 parking spaces. Mr. O’Brien provided information about and site plans for other Dollar General sites and the parking spaces of those locations. Dollar General feels that 30 spaces are sufficient for a store of this size. Allows for snow storage on site and future site business growth.

Ms. Rose inquired about the status of the signage for the building. Mr. O’Brien stated that sign work continues. There is one sign on site already. They are still trying to work out detail with Mr. St Onge, owner of the self-storage facility to the rear of the property. Either a sign will have to be relocated or a joint sign will have to be agreed upon. If the proposed signage does not meet code, another variance will have to be requested. Proposed sign locations are noted on the site plans as per the Planning Board’s Site Plan Checklist.

Mr. St. John, in clarifying that the company believes that 35 spaces is an adequate number of spaces, asked if that holds true consistently throughout the year. What might happen during parts of the year when there may be a greater number of shoppers; what happens if people do not find a space? How does the traffic manage that backup, where might the patron go to park? Mr. O’Brien noted that the drive aisles are wide enough to allow a car to turn around and leave the site if there is not enough parking. Mr. St. John asked where else might additional parking be added to the site plan. Mr. O’Brien suggested a few additional spaces could be gained on the north property line, allowing perhaps three additional cars to parallel park.

Mr. Allen inquired about the drive aisles and how it is looked at from an engineering perspective. He appreciated the ability to add additional spaces, but was concerned about how that would affect traffic. Mr. O’Brien noted that the driveway is 30’ wide, which is greater than the typical 24-26’ wide driveway. Those dimensions allow for additional turning room and maneuverability up front. The drive aisle itself is 36’ wide. Typical drive aisles are only 24’ wide.

Mr. O’Brien addressed the constraints of the property; the well is in the front, and the septic has to be located in the rear. He explained about the well potentially being construed as a public well which requires a 100’ perimeter around the well. There are also grading and drainage issues that were indicated on the south side of the property. The septic in the rear preclude having any additional parking in the rear.

Mr. Allen asked about deliveries. The receiving are was shown on the plans. Mr. O’Brien noted that there would be one or two deliveries a week. He explained how trucks would back into the receiving area. Further, he explained how items for sale are crated rather than boxed. Mr. Griesemer asked about hours of operation. Mr. O’Brien stated generally 7am-11pm or 8am-10pm.

Ms. Rose asked about shutters vs. awnings. Mr. O’Brien stated that an alternate elevation showing shutters will be provided to the Planning Board at their request. Mr. St John asked what action would be taken if the Board denied the parking variance. Mr. O’Brien said it would probably not be developable. Mr. St. John addressed Mr. St. Onge about the options for this property. Mr. St. Onge replied that there is no other proposal at this time. Mr. St. John asked Mr. St Onge whether he would consider additional storage facilities on the site. Mr. St. Onge said that would not be economically feasible. The property has been on the market for 10-12 years.

Mr. Allen addressed the letter from Mr. Grout regarding the ingress and egress. He inquired whether the Planning Board is discussing a traffic signal at the site. Mr. O’Brien stated that this particular use does not generate enough traffic to warrant a signal. More than 100 trips per hour would trigger the Department of Transportation to investigate. The shared driveway was the only comment from the Department of Transportation. Comparable sites typically get 50-60 trips per hour. Mr. Allen asked about the number of trips per to the self-storage facility. Mr. St. Onge stated that there was very low traffic at the self-storage. There will be no parking for the self-storage customers at the Proposed Dollar General and vise-versa.

For clarification, Mr. Allen asked if the 50% reduction in parking spaces were not acceptable, how many additional spaces could be added. Mr. O’Brien thought 4-5 additional spaces could be added, but the impact to impervious area would need to be looked at.

A discussion of parking capacity and density at other locations around town ensued.

Ms. Rose inquired about potential employment. Mr. O’Brien thought that 7 to 15 employees total with 4-5 employees on site at a time depending on time of day and year.

Mr. Bujanow noted that the Planning Board made a favorable recommendation for the proposed number of spaces (on file).

The floor was opened to the public for comment.

Mr. Ed Simonsen stated that he would agree with the applicant that there should be 3 different levels of calculations for parking requirements at a commercial site. That being said, he provided a few examples of present sites in the town of Kinderhook which do not provide enough parking for customers. He noted the Starkman dental office does not have adequate parking. He felt that the Stewart’s has insufficient parking spaces as customers often park where no parking space is designated. Dunkin’ Donuts also has insufficient parking. The former tenants of the Mavis tire store had cars parked on the grass where no parking was designated. All of those sites use the current calculations to determine the number of parking spaces and at every one of them the parking is insufficient. He cautioned the board to be careful. He recognized that the type of business does determine the parking requirement. It is a complicated issue. A 50% reduction is significant. Mr. Simonsen also raised the issue of access. He specifically noted Dunkin’ Donuts. Assurances were made about their deliveries which were not adhered to. Mr. Simonsen reminded the board that they have to protect the community and the residents; the applicants have a business with a financial interest and their concern is not with the safety of the members of the community. Mr. Simonsen voiced frustration with the access of the CVS. Further, he stated that it is important that trucks exiting the proposed location in question are not backing up onto Route 9. Mr. Simonsen reminded the board that it could be Dollar General today, and tomorrow something else. Once this commercial site was developed with the limited parking so long as the use remained the same, the parking variance would remain. It would be very difficult at that point to add additional parking to meet any future use. Ultimately, Mr. Simonsen objected to the degree of the variance being requested. He also recommended voting on the two variances separately.

Mr. O’Brien offered the truck simulation for the board’s review. Department of Transportation does not want trucks backing out onto Route 9.

Mr. Bujanow raised the issue of the CVS parking variance and the “banked parking” on that project. It was unknown what the percentages of parking were for that location.

Mr. St. Onge disagreed with Mr. Simonsen in regard to the parking at Stewart’s noting that he has never had a problem getting parking there nor has he ever seen cars parked on the lawn. He did agree that there is a problem at Dunkin Donuts. In regard to CVS, the entrance is very narrow, compared to the proposed entrance to the Dollar General which is wide.

Mr. St. Onge noted that he visits Stewart’s every day, and has never had a problem parking. He did not feel the comparison with Dunkin’ Donuts was fair.

Ms. Reina inquired about a different business in the future; would a future project come before the board again? It was clarified by the attorney that the variance goes with the use. A change of use would require a site plan review and a new study of the parking. For example, the selling of prepared food would be a change of use and would require a new site plan review.

Mr. Grout’s letter was entered into the record (on file). The nature of Mr. Grout’s concerns would be more applicable to the Planning Board and the letter will be shared with them as well.

No further questions from the public.

Board discussion ensued. Ms. Rose inquired about future use of the site. She inquired about using the south side of the property for additional parking. Mr. O’Brien replied that due to drainage issues and a swale, it would be difficult to get cars in and out of that side. Future tenants or owners would be aware of the constraints of the parking and would that make the site more difficult to fill. Mr. Allen wondered about and was not sure that fewer spaces would relate to less traffic. He also has concern that putting in additional spaces may have negative impacts. To him, the fundamental concern is whether the ingress and egress is safe at this level and size for this spot on Route 9. There may be a connection between the number of spaces and the traffic that comes on and off the main road. He feels this may be a matter more for the Planning Board. He also inquired about the sign and how that would affect visibility. Mr. O’Brien noted that the existing sign to the north of the entrance is set back and well off the ground providing for adequate site line to the north. A sign to the south of the entrance would be set back far enough as to allow adequate site distance to the south.

No further questions or comments from the board.

A motion to close the Public Hearing was made by Mr. Bujanow. Motion seconded by Ms. Rose. All in favor; none opposed. Motion carried; hearing closed.

Mr. Allen broached the subject of taking the variances as two separate resolutions. It was the consensus of the board that that would be the best way to proceed.

The Short Environmental Assessment Form was reviewed by the attorney for the variance regarding the sliding glass doors.

Part II of the EAF (Short Form Environmental Assessment)

A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE 1 THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4?

Proposed answer is no.

B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4?

Proposed answer is no.

C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:

C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noiselevels, exisiting traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?