TOWN OF WALLKILL PLANNING BOARD

MEETING

MAY 7, 2003

MEMBERS PRESENT: G. Lake, R. Carr, A. Dulgarian, G. Luenzmann, G. Monaco, P. Owen

MEMBERS ABSENT: T. Hamilton

OTHERS PRESENT: G. Barone, D. McGoey

1. PUBLIC HEARING 7:30 P.M. - RED ROBIN - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Crystal Run Road/Crystal Run Crossings (78-1-30.3) #010-003

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 7:31 P.M. C. Kelly read the Public Hearing notice.

C. Kelly: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING of the Planning Board of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York, will be held at the Town Hall at 600 Route 211 East, in said Town, on the 7th day of May, 2003 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard that day on the application of Deer Woods, LLC., 322 President Street, Brooklyn, New York 11231 for the approval of Site Plan and Special Use Permit for Red Robin Restaurant located on 2-16 Crystal Run Crossing Road adjacent to the intersection of Crystal Run Crossing Road and Exit 122 of NYS Route 17 West under Section 249-39 of the Zoning Law of the Town of Wallkill. All parties of interest will be heard at said time and place. S/Gary Lake, Chairman

G. Lake: Do you want to give us a brief description of what you are going to be doing and bring us up to date, please?

T. DePuy: Red Robin is going to be located on lot #3 of Crystal Run Crossing. It’s adjacent to lot #5. It will be serviced by the Town of Wallkill Sewer and Water. The building itself is six thousand square feet. We have one hundred five parking spaces proposed for the site here. We have shown a future building but we’re not asking for any approval at this time on that. Additionally with the new storm water management requirements, a portion of the site does go to our cleansing pond that’s designed for the Marriott but this portion here is tributary to the (not clear) so we have an underground combination of cleansing purposes for that addition to the site discharging to the storm sewer out in front of Crystal Run Road.

We’ve also presented the elevation of the building and we have further documentation on the
traffic.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board before the Public.

A. Dulgarian: Not until after the public.

P. Owen: I will wait.

R. Carr: Nothing at this time.

G. Luenzmann: I will wait.

G. Monaco: I will wait.

G. Lake: I will close the Public Hearing then at 7:35 P.M.

MOTION to close the PUBLIC HEARING at 7:35 P.M. made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

G. Lake: Let’s go through the comments, Tom.

T. DePuy: Comment #1, we still must resolve the issue with respect with the applicant’s unwillingness to construct the through lane on Crystal Run Road. The applicant’s traffic

consultant has provided documentation which indicates the traffic now generated at Crystal Run Crossing is in light of the changes from the office building to the restaurant use and other changes does not warrant a through lane. Basically I submitted all that information. This lot was supposed to have a sixty thousand square foot office building on it. It now has a six thousand square foot restaurant. Additionally, we’ve left the Hess approval lapse which was another traffic generator. We can’t develop that until the Exit 122 alternate is selected. We’re taking that information into account. The traffic generation is less than what was originally projected.

G. Lake: Dick, was the Hess lot part of this whole . . .

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Lake: For that turning lane? Have you seen the new report from Collins?

D. McGoey: Yes I have.

G. Lake: The turning lane that’s a little sticky issue. Unfortunately the State hasn’t made a decision. We’re kind of stuck here. We know that it’s needed but yet.

D. McGoey: Regardless of what the traffic study says the through lane would be a significant improvement to the area. I also understand that it could be a dead-end. I still think there needs to be the through lane.

T. DePuy: I think that’s why we let the Hess approval lapse because we understand that if that alternate is selected that we will have to slide all those lanes over.

R. Carr: You do recognize that it might be required?

T. DePuy: Right, in the future.

R. Carr: Are you willing then to post a bond to cover that work if it were required?

T. DePuy: I don’t know. It’s up to the developer.

J. Safe: The problem with the two preferred alternatives is this piece of road work if it was developed would be useless. They’re widening to the inside, not the outside.

G. Lake: I think what Mr. Carr has just brought up though is that we might be looking for a way to protect ourselves if, once we find out what alternative, it might not be needed. I think even Mr. McGoey has indicated that. All we’re trying to do is say, in the SEQRA process you recognize that yourself and you agree to do it at some point in time. What we’re saying is and what Mr. Carr is trying to say and I’m kind of agreeing with him is there a mechanism in some way that we can protect ourselves and the Town to get that through lane through if needed. If it’s not needed then the bond would go away. Do you know what I’m trying to say? We’re not asking you to build it now even though I think this is the parcel it’s supposed to be on at this point in time.

J. Safe: I really would hate to commit to a bond.

G. Lake: I think we’re open to suggestions then. If you want to get together with Mr. McGoey and Mr. Barone and work something out.

J. Safe: I’m not going anywhere. I still have other projects. Why can’t we just postpone that decision for another day? We’ve changed the project substantially. We’ve dumped the gas station and we’ve dumped the office building. Those were the two big generators that were the catalyst for these improvements. We’re not doing them anymore. We have a traffic report that shows that we don’t need this road and I would say, let’s wait.

D. McGoey: You’ve only got one lot left.

J. Safe: Yes, and I will be back.

D. McGoey: We might be saving you two hundred thousand dollars but not requiring you to build it. It’s needed now. We’ve got problems out there. I don’t care what the traffic study says. We have problems out there. That through lane would help. I’m also agreeing that if Exit 122 is built it would be useless then. I really think we need some security.

J. Safe: We are looking for an approval tonight and can we have that as a condition to be worked out?

G. Lake: Otherwise, you’re kind of willing to work out the bond issue at this point?

J. Safe: Sure.

G. Lake: And then move on?

J. Safe: Yes. I don’t want to hold up Red Robin.

G. Lake: Tom, go ahead.

T. DePuy: We continue to recommend that the applicant contribute to the right hand slip ramp on Exit 122. We have agreed to that. We will use the same calculation that was used for the other establishment from the Crystal Run area. The applicant proposes to provide steps from the sidewalk along the Town road to the parking lot for Red Robin. It should result in the steps being totally outside the right-of-way to avoid the Town’s need for responsibility to maintain the steps. We had submitted revised plans which showed the cross section and detail of the steps and showed that they were outside the right-of-way.

D. McGoey: Okay. I didn’t see those.

T. DePuy: We had submitted our plans and then we had gotten your comments and then we resubmitted. I don’t think you were able to get caught up. The lighting levels continue to be an issue. A revised lighting plan showing the details of the shielded lights are to be provided. In our re-submittal package we had done that. We had stepped down the lighting to two hundred fifty watt metal (not clear) which reduced the hot spots and we also showed that there are shoe box figures. There is not light exiting from the site. The Planning Board is to review the landscape plans for acceptability. We would request that a weed barrier be provided in the planting bed in addition that stone be used in lieu of the mulch for fire safety. We have changed those two details showing the weed barrier and also we’re proposing the stone instead of the mulch. The Water and Sewer Department to be advised whether a six inch lateral is a satisfaction for the two intended uses. I talked to Mr. Smith today about that and he said that normally each building has it’s own lateral. We will change the plan accordingly. That’s not a problem. We were trying not to have to go back out into the street. The Fire Department wanted us to put a Knox box entrance key in, which we have shown on the drawings. We are also identifying the roof truss types. There was a question about sprinklers but we said that would be a Building Department issue. The Planning Board raised concerns at the last meeting in regards to parking along the main access road. We have a concern about cars backing into the main access. This should be discussed with the Planning Board. That was the issue over head on the back side. Our main access is here. From the very beginning this access road through here always had parking here. I don’t see any concerns. The last comment is that we’re re-scheduled for a Public Hearing.

D. McGoey: Item #9 has to do with the parking to be provided on lot #4 for the overflow parking.

J. Safe: That has been used as a construction staging area for Marriott and I understand that Marriott’s contractor can open up that parking lot for the overflow. We’ve had a double problem out there because the construction workers have been parking in the Outback parking lot and they finished paving today so the construction workers will now be parking on Marriott and they will be taking down the construction fence so the Marriott parking lot will open up for the overall shared parking.

D. McGoey: That was a condition, I think, the Marriott approval that the lot be saved for overflow parking.

T. DePuy: I think we were going to look at it at a later date.

J. Safe: One hundred more parking spaces will be opening up in a couple of weeks.

G. Lake: Let me go back to the Board.

A. Dulgarian: Gary, can you please come back to me?

P. Owen: My main concern is just having that security about the road. The interchange has changed all the time and the options that have been proposed. It doesn’t mean that what they’re proposing now, it could be two different ones are what’s going to be in the future. I would love to have at least some sort of security.

G. Lake: Right on lane?

P. Owen: On the through road, right.

G. Lake: I think that would be part of the approval to make them accept it or not accept it. I happen to agree with you.

R. Carr: What about the sidewalk along the Hampton Inn? We talked about an agreement the last time about the sidewalk.

T. DePuy: I think we’ve got that. You’re coming down two steps up in here and then . . .

G. Luenzmann: The plan has gone from sixty thousand square feet office building which would require a lot of parking and now down to six thousand square feet for a restaurant so there’s a significant reduction. I have two concerns in this development. One is the access coming in and out and here is a situation where because we don’t know what the Exit 122 is going to be, why have a developer put a lot of money into something that later on needs to be torn up. So, but what happens if that is widened and then we need the light. I think we need the bond in order to assure that the funds are available. The other item that I have a concern about in this development is parking. Right here at Red Robin you don’t have a problem. We do have problems at the other restaurants.

G. Lake: So, you have approved the bond?

G. Luenzmann: Yes.

G. Lake: Mr. DePuy please explain again the shared parking that is going to happen to those two restaurants with Marriott?

T. DePuy: This is supposed to be part of the overall shared parking right through here. What’s happened is during construction this was being used as a staging area for the Marriott and the construction workers have been parking in the Outback parking lot. They are not leaving and it’s been a problem. I understand some of the traffic has died but that is what compounded the problem. They finished paving today and I met with the Superintendent of the Marriott and he is going to open this parking lot up here for shared parking now.

G. Lake: How many parking spots will open up?

T. DePuy: Over here I think about seventy two parking spaces. The Marriott parking generally starts filling up about 9:00 to 9:30 P.M. which is past the peak of the restaurant.

G. Monaco: I was also concerned about the excess parking. Something has to be done on the assurance of that lane if needed.

A. Dulgarian: Can you just briefly discuss the traffic flow through the parking lot? All these are connected, right?

T. DePuy: Right.

A. Dulgarian: The Hampton Inn is one straight line.

T. DePuy: Right.

A. Dulgarian: Can any of these come straight through and then get out on to Crystal Run or come out the Crossing Road?

T. DePuy: Right.

A. Dulgarian: This up here is still a straight flow?

T. DePuy: No.

A. Dulgarian: Is dumping the other three lots into that turn, that doesn’t (not clear).

D. McGoey: Right out only.

A. Dulgarian: The patron would have a choice. The second part of that question is with this future gourmet coffee shop, that’s probably going to have a drive-thru? How is that going to affect traffic flow? Your footprint is not big enough and you’re going to come right here with the major flow. I know we’re not doing this tonight but you’ve shown it on here and I want to know if that’s going to happen.

T. DePuy: We’re waiting to get the final footprint on there.

A. Dulgarian: The next question is pedestrian flow. Patrons staying at the Hampton Inn.

T. DePuy: We put in a set of stairs.

A. Dulgarian: Every lot is being connected for pedestrians?

T. DePuy: Right.

A. Dulgarian: Any future signalization or a four way stop down here?

T. DePuy: I don’t know.

A. Dulgarian: Any additional signage on the site, no reader boards or anything?

T. DePuy: Each will have their own sign.

A. Dulgarian: There will be no reader board out by the road?

T. DePuy: No. Mr. Safe you have intention of reader boards in that plan?

J. Safe: No.

A. Dulgarian: I see you’re showing six thousand square feet on Red Robin but on your parking you’re showing 6,600 square feet. Is that because of the other use?

T. DePuy: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: You included that in your parking calculations?

T. DePuy: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: When ever we have a restaurant opening in the Town we always have a concern that where do these people wait? I was looking for a better drawing here but can you point it out?

T. DePuy: Showed Mr. Dulgarian the areas for waiting.

A. Dulgarian: The service area in the back, is that where your dumpsters are?

T. DePuy: Yes.

G. Lake: Is there anything else from the Board at this time?

MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION subject to all the comments and the agreement of the bond to be worked out made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by R. Carr.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

MOTION for SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT subject to all comments and the bond issue made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 6 AYES

2. PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. - WALLKILL INDUSTRIAL PARK LOT 2 - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Rykowski Lane (60-1-84) #012-003

G. Lake: Public Hearing started at 8:00 P.M. C. Kelly read the Public Hearing notice.

C. Kelly: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a PUBLIC HEARING of the Planning Board of the Town of Wallkill, Orange County, New York, will be held at the Town Hall at 600 Route 211 East, in said Town on the 7th day of May, 2003 at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be