by Dan McClelland
The members of the joint village and town planning board are very close in their approval of the ambitious redevelopment of the former Oval Wood Dish Corp. industrial complex on Demars Blvd. into a modern residential facility with over 90 apartments, judging by the discussion at last week's January board meeting. There is still some work to be done, however, on any conditions that may be attached to the coming approval.
A half a dozen of Developer Joe Gehm's project team appeared before the planners via Zoom Wednesday.
Zina Lagonegro, director of entitlements and permitting from Passero Associates of Rochester, who has prepared many of the permitting documents for the project, introduced some of her colleagues that evening.
With her from Passero Associates was Joshua Saxton, who was there to answer any any questions the planners had about lighting of the development and parking, she said. She also introduced Architect Tim Geier.
Also in attendance were Diana Jakimoski of the division of housing, Mira Mejibovsk, Briana Mitchell and Charlie Breuer.
Developer Joe Gehm briefed the planners on some of the recent changes made to the site plan of the project- many at the planners' requests at the last meeting in late October.
In the southwest corner of the property near the town hall, part of a planned retaining wall was scaled back.
An outdoor parking lot in front of the former Tupper Lake Veneer Plant portion of the complex where indoor parking is planned was increased in size slightly to the west, he said.
The plan is still for a total of 135 parking spots in the indoor and outdoor lots, as had been proposed originally and which generated some concerns by the planning board members at the October 27 meeting as not enough, given that some of the tenants of the 90 apartments planned will have two cars.
Mr. Gehm said the western side entrance was moved slightly to the west to make it easier to access the two parking areas.
He said that unfortunately they cannot afford to build a third lot behind the former Veneer plant to add more parking spaces, as the local planners would have liked.
“We feel confident that 135 spots is ample for the project at the moment.” He held out the possibility more parking could be added in the future if there was a demonstrated need for more parking of tenants and guests.
The new plans also called for the relocation of a dumpster area behind the town hall, another concern by the planners last time, to the eastern side of the property behind the pellet silos of Roger Sullivan's O.W.D. Inc. and out of sight of passersby on Demars Blvd.
Ms. Lagonegro said the site changes done since the fall meeting and during correspondence between them and the town planning office in past months address all of the concerns expressed by the planning board members in October.
Planner Jim Merrihew, who had a number of parking and other concerns and visibility questions at the October meeting, reminded Mr. Gehm and his group that he had liked the original parking plan with 84 spots where more of it was hidden. “You'll remember my comment about parking that the best parking lot is the one you can't see” or at least one that is difficult to see. “That was ideal!”
“People in town know what the building looks like and what it will look like when it's done,” he said of the reports and photos published since last fall. He noted that how the project is finished on the exterior will greatly influence how it and the community will be viewed by passersby of the site.
He said while he didn't understand the economics of the venture “but if you are saying it is cost prohibitive” to move the parking lot behind the Veneer portion of the building “I get that.”
“I think this is a great project. I want to see it happen! It will be a great project for Tupper Lake!”
He said his intent to have the outside parking moved to the rear of the site was to give the campus more of a residential feel and not resemble a strip mall.
He said too the addition of more green space between the enlarged outdoor parking lot and the town's community garden is most welcome. “It'll make it more difficult to see there's a large parking lot there!”
With respect to the lighting plan he said it was apparent the plan advanced by the developers is “dark-sky compliant,” as both the planning board and the leaders of the Adirondack Sky Museum project want.
“If you can pay attention to how much lighting each of your areas require, that would be very good for the observatory” and its night sky viewing.
“We require dark-sky compliant lights. You have met that and I'm okay with that.”
He said the renderings furnished the planners set in a beautiful sunset with clouds overhead makes “the building looks great!”
“Overall I like your plan. I wish the parking could have been hidden on the north side, but I'll take what we have right now for the project,” Mr. Merrihew told Mr. Gehm and his team.
Board member Tom Maroun said he agreed with Mr. Merrihew on having the parking moved out of sight to the rear of the property. “I do understand there would be extra costs involved with doing that.”
“I like the project. I think everything looks good.” He said he liked the way the developers had scaled back the amount of lights they intend to erect and for making them downward pointing and in compliance with the community's dark sky regulations.
Mr. Maroun also liked the fact the trash receptacles were moved from near the outdoor parking area on the western side of the property to the other side where they were out of public view for the most part.
“I'm good with this plan,” he asserted.
Doug Bencze also agreed with the points made by his colleagues.
He wondered, however, about the need for overflow parking to accommodate guests. He thought under the current plan those people would encroach on tenants' parking spaces.
Joe Gehm said he thought that guests could be easily accommodated with the 135 new parking spots proposed there. He said apartment dwellers will not be parked there all the time and may be out of town certain times of the week- leaving many spots open to guests. “Quite honestly, I think we'll be okay!”
Jan Yaworski said she also agreed with her colleagues on the points they raised that evening.
“I think it's a great project.”
On the large red maples that will be planted in the green area behind the community garden next to the town hall, she wondered if they would provide too much shade for the garden plots. She wondered if a different variety of tree that didn't grow as tall might be a better choice.
It was noted later in the meeting that with the sun in the southern sky any shade from any new trees would be beyond them.
She also questioned the lighting contour map that had been furnished to the board that day which appeared to reverse the illuminated areas around the complex and the intensity of the lighting in each from the October plan.
Joshua Saxton, who made the changes to the lighting plan advanced in October, said the closer to each building the stronger the degree of lighting. “The foot candle measurement decreases the farther you go from the building which means less light,” he told her.
He apologized that the colors used to denote the lighting contours might have been switched in the most recent lighting plans. “The colors of the lines were apparently switched in the recent plan,” he explained.
Ms. Yaworski continued. “Within the lighting plan when there is one light facing the other and when they are situated on the outside balusters of the buildings, will it be brighter there?” she asked the consultants.
Mr. Saxton said in those instances the light shed wouldn't be doubled. The trouble with staggering lights on opposite buildings sometimes causes dark spots, which can be troubling particularly in the court yard areas and entrance areas proposed outside many of the buildings.
“That's why we want those areas in particular evenly lit and well lit for safety!”
Ms. Yaworski asked if they planned to use any dimmer switches or motion-sensitive lights in various areas of the complex.
Mr. Saxton said lighting will likely be dimmed in the early morning hours when there are few or no pedestrians around the buildings. “The main point of enough lighting is for safety of people walking by or through the court yards,” he told her.
“There will be a set dimmed times likely from 11p.m. to 5a.m.,” he thought.
The indoor parking area lights would also be dimmed somewhat in the early morning hours.
“All the lights will be dim-able and all will be on timers,” according to Ms. Lagonegro.
Andrew Chary noted that the front parking lot appeared to be uniformly lit at one-foot candle. “Is that the minimum for a parking lot or you wouldn't want some pools of one-foot candle and then some dimmer areas?”
Mr. Saxton told him that the “general rule of thumb” is that a half a foot candle (of light) is the minimum but his firm prefers to recommend one foot candle lighting for areas like parking lots. “It provides ample lighting for drivers and for pedestrians,” he told Mr. Chary.
Mr. Chary said while he is new to the project being at his first planning session, he found it “very exciting.”
He said in his review of the local zoning language quoted in the project's engineering plans, he learned that the minimum parking aisle in town is 26 feet. A parking aisle is a service road passing between rows of parking.
“-And yet we're being presented aisles of 24 feet. I'm looking how tight that parking lot is and presume you can't get the 26-foot aisles? He wondered why the narrower aisles.
Mr. Saxton explained that 26 foot wide roads between rows of parking are generally required if there are fire hydrants installed along them and a fire access lane is required of ample width for fire trucks to maneuver.
“We're not proposing any hydrants near the building so we don't require aisles of 26 feet.”
He said they find 24 feet between rows of parking is sufficient for two-way traffic on private roads in parking lots.
Planning Board Member Dave St. Onge, attending by Zoom, felt his colleagues had covered all his questions about the project's site plan.
“I really like the new place for the garbage bins.”
He wondered if there was going to be a central building control system to regulate the various elements of the lighting system- including aspects of the dimming and what lights are on at certain times of the day.
Architect Geier explained most of the operations of the lighting will be on “set timers” and will be fully automatic. There won't be a central control system that Mr. St. Onge asked about. “All our lights will be programmed to dim at certain times.”
Chairman Shawn Stuart called the apartment complex envisioned “a great project” and thanked Mr. Gehm and his team for the changes “and input” made since the October meeting.
At his request, the designers posted views of the development from each direction on the town's large video screen that evening.
“From my standpoint, I'm not that concerned about the parking” and the view of it when it comes to traffic from either the east or west. He said from the east, the buildings block the view of the outdoor parking area. From the west some of the lot is blocked by the town hall, the community garden and the green area and trees to be planned there. “Any view of it is just a flash as people drive by,” he told his colleagues.
A sweeping driveway leads off Demars Blvd. to the parking lot, adjacent to the town hall.
At Mr. Stuart's request, aerial shots from above were shown both in day time and night time.
There will be new lights on all sides of every building, but rear lighting will be very minimal, it was noted.
Andrew Chary said he had read the various discussions between Mr. Merrihew and the design team at past meetings. “Could someone explain drainage swale crossing and the costs associated with putting parking” in the back of the indoor parking building “that are dissuading you” from doing it?
Mr. Saxton said that additional drainage is planned in addition to the swale around the parking area.
Mr. Chary pressed about the reasons the northern parking lot recommendation by the board had been abandoned.
Ms. Lagonegro said there is an existing swale that runs along the western side of the structure “and there is a substantial area of gravel which we are removing” to meet the state storm water regulations.
She said by adding more pervious surfaces again (like the gravel in a new parking lot) it “complicates” their compliance with the storm water regulations.
“That's one of the reasons. The other reason is that the swale (ditch) itself and providing a new road along the western side of the building (to the new parking lot) would “require some fill and some substantial regrading to rework our storm water management plan” to get to the back of the building.
She said that rear area has also been reserved for recreational space for the complex and where a new playground will be situated. There will also be a connection to the Junction Pass trail there, she told the planners.
“We haven't thoroughly thought out all the public aspects of the project yet,” she explained, noting more recreational and public elements may be added to the complex over time.
“So we don't want to do a lot of grading and reworking of our storm water management plan and the extension of our utilities to add costs to the project which would be prohibitive at this point until we know more about what the site wants to be ten years from now,” she told the planning board.
Mr. Chary asked them if they could use some of the gravel that will be removed to put in other areas of the site that need fill as a cost saving for them.
“Probably not, as it is a mix of earth and gravel,” Ms. Lagonegro told him. She said those materials don't compact well.
Asked to comment on the project by Mr. Stuart, Village Code Enforcement Officer Peter Edwards said he liked the changes the design team had made since the last meeting.
As the 45-minute discussion came to a close Paul O'Leary presented a list of conditions for permit approval that the planning board members had asked him to draft in advance of Wednesday's meeting. Factored into that list were some conditions suggested by the applicants.
The town planner first read the planning board's recommended conditions:
“That the planning board shall retain continuing jurisdiction of the exterior lighting plan regarding wattage and shedding of light for one year after all improvements have been completed and during this one-year period the planning board may prescribe reasonable modifications that it sees fit to mitigate any adverse impact of the project lighting. That the planning board shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the parking, landscaping and planting plans of the project until one year after the certificate of occupancy is issued for the whole project. During this one year period the planning board may prescribe reasonable additional parking and plantings as it sees fit in order to mitigate inadequate parking and visual impacts. Plantings that do not survive will be replaced in kind within the one year period.”
The applicant offered the following conditions of permit:
“It is a condition of site plan and special permit approval that the owner of the property construct and execute building and site improvements, pursuant to the approved plan for the redevelopment of the Oval Wood Dish factory consisting of multi-family residential and commercial uses and at its collaborative effort between the owner and the planning board to: 1) insure the building accent, parking lot and courtyard lights are dark-sky compliant and sufficient to provide the safety and security of residents and visitors to the site; 2) to insure that the approved parking lot is constructed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to the site; 3) to insure that the landscaping is maintained to provide color, texture and visual appeal to the site including proper care and maintenance and replacement of dead and unhealthy plantings.”
Mr. Stuart called for a motion that included permit approval with all those conditions.
Mr. Gehm interrupted at that point saying the town conditions calling for the continued oversight by the planning board for the next year were financially unworkable. “We cannot add that financial risk with any conditions that may be brought up after certificate of occupancy.” He said those conditions would compromise their position with their state and private financial backers. “It's a financial exposure we unfortunately cannot take on!”
“We're all for working with you guys to make sure that we come to agreement with all these specs- but as far as a one-year window after your approvals, that's just not something we can agree on.”
Mr. Stuart then picked the board conditions apart. If the plantings die, you have to replace them. If the lights are too bright they have to be turned down. He said neither of those things are financially burdensome.
“If we are talking about dimming lights, that's once thing,” countered Mr. Gehm. “If you are talking about removing lights that's another.”
Mr. Stuart asked for his members' input.
“Your term collaborative effort with the planning board,” began Mr. Merrihew, “takes the place of our” one-year of oversight. “I suppose it would be very easy in a collaborative effort, if we have an issue and we're meeting with you folks and we're trying to come up with a plan that satisfies both of us. The easy out is- and I'm not trying to be insulting, that 'we can't afford it.' Is that a true collaborative effort between us?”
“I get what you are saying, Joe!” He offered, however, he couldn't really predict how “this collaborative effort” between the two groups would exactly work. “Maybe there won't be any problems?”
Mr. Gehm suggested a third party be retained to work out conditions that are agreeable to both sides. “This process should result in the final decision in a process you guys are comfortable with in what we are going to construct and put on that site and how it is going to be lit. Going back after the fact” is not a workable solution, he told them.
“There's an open exposure for our team and for our banking partners and it won't work!”
“Our goal is to get an approval from you that you are happy with what we are presenting.”
Diane Jakimoski of the division of housing said if the state sees any major conditions in the planning board's approval it “does tend to hesitate” and “we don't want to give the state any reason not to fund the application.” She explained that conditions can precipitate both delays in state funding and rejections of applications, requiring applicants to re-apply with changes.
Mr. Stuart worried about the planning board signing off too early on the unfolding project.
“Once that parking lot is full of vehicles and it looks like Yankee Stadium, and it's apparent there needs to be more shrubs (to screen it) and break up the view from the state highway” there needs to be a way to make that happen. “We're just talking about tweaking” the permit, he told Mr. Gehm.
Mr. Gehm said they would rather that the planners make any and all recommendations right now.
On the chairman's recommendation, the planning board tabled the project for the time being and agreed to consult with a third party to resolve the differences between the planners and the developers.
Andrew Chary said before voting on the permit he would first like to discuss with the board “the things they would like to be able to fine tune in the future.” He thought excess lighting may be something neighbors might complain about later, and so the planners should leave themselves with a vehicle to revisit those sorts of complaints.
“I understand that Joe's proposed language says if we get your approval that's all we are going to do. On the other side of the table, however, where the town does keep purview over plantings and lights and screenings, we could be more specific about what our concerns are. Those may not be monetary. They might be simple things. We might say that's our purview and that may help the differences in our languages come together more.”
He thought there may be advantages in tabling action on the permit to allow more discussion between the planners and the developers.
David St. Onge explained he raised the issue of the development having “a building control system” so problems like too much lighting in certain areas of the complex could be addressed very quickly and at no cost to the owner.
“I'm not so concerned with parking. I thought Shawn brought up a good point you will only see the parking lot from Demars Blvd.” a short time while driving by.
“I don't think parking is as much of a concern as the lighting” of the buildings. He thought the board might abandon its call for conditions, if there was a mechanism in place where the community could address any complaints that arise in the future.
Doug Bencze made a motion to table the permit, leaving the door open for more discussions with the developer. Tom Maroun seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
Chairman Stuart suggested the board members meet several times in coming days to develop “some ideas” of what might be acceptable to Mr. Gehm and his group.