Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.11.13 Rye Brook Planning Board Report & Recommendation1313/92/650836v1 11/14/18 November 13, 2018 __APPROVED 6-0____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY 900 KING STREET OWNERS LLC FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND A PUD CONCEPT PLAN FOR A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 KING STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rye Brook Planning Board hereby submits the attached Report and Recommendation to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on an application by 900 King Street Owners LLC for approval of Amendments to the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook and a PUD Concept Plan regarding real property located at 900 King Street. On a motion by Mr. Grzan, second by Mr. Morlino, Mr. Michal Nowak, Village Engineer, called the roll: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION: Ayes: DRECHSLER, GRZAN, MORLINO, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA, ZAHL Nays: Abstain: Excused: GOODMAN 1313/92/650836v1 11/14/18 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY 900 KING STREET OWNERS LLC FOR APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF RYE BROOK AND A PUD CONCEPT PLAN FOR A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 900 KING STREET I. APPLICATION OVERVIEW The Village Board of Trustees referred an application by 900 King Street Owners LLC (“Applicant”) for approval of Amendments to the Zoning Code of the Village of Rye Brook and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan to allow redevelopment of the property with 24 two- and three-bedroom age restricted townhouses, 160 two-bedroom age-restricted apartments, and an 85-unit assisted living/memory care facility (“Project”) on real property located at 900 King Street (the “Property”) in the PUD Zoning District, to the Planning Board for report and recommendation. Following the referral, the Board of Trustees as Lead Agency issued a Positive Declaration pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) finding that the Project may result in one or more significant adverse environmental impacts thereby requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Based on an adopted Scoping Outline, the Applicant submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which the Board of Trustees accepted as complete on September 12, 2018. The Board of Trustees opened a public hearing on the DEIS, Zoning Amendments and PUD Concept Plan on October 22, 2018 and the public hearing remains open. The Planning Board is an Involved Agency pursuant to SEQRA with approval authority over the Wetland Permit and Steep Slopes Permit that will be required as part of the Project. The Planning Board has prepared this Report and Recommendation for two purposes: (a) in response to the Board of Trustees’ referral of the application, and (b) as comments on the DEIS to be considered and addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 1313/92/650836v1 11/14/18 II. DISCUSSION The Planning Board reviewed and discussed the DEIS, proposed Zoning amendments and PUD Concept Plan at its October 11, 2018 and November 13, 2018 meetings, with an emphasis on a review of the DEIS. In general, the Planning Board recommends a reduction in the overall size and density of the Project. In addition to the comments raised by the Village’s Planning and Traffic Consultants (FCPA) and the Village’s Engineer Consultants (DRE and HDR) in their memoranda each dated November 2, 2018, the Planning Board presents the following comments for consideration in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): 1. Explain the relationship, if any, between the property’s original PUD approval by the Town of Rye and the proposed Zoning amendments and Concept Plan. 2. Explain the impacts, if any, of changing the existing use of the property such that the overall PUD which includes the Arbors would be altered from a mix of uses (residential/office) to solely residential. 3. Explain the relationship between, or impact of, the 1998 Resolution of the Board of Trustees (DEIS, Appendix B-2) and the proposed Zoning Amendments and Concept Plan. 4. Consider whether the Project, or a modified version thereof, can be developed without amending the Zoning Code and instead relying on waivers by the Board of Trustees or variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5. Why was 20% chosen as the percentage by which the density of the project was reduced in the “Reduced Density” alternative? How is the Reduced Density alternative consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation for increased density that is in keeping with the low density character of the Village? 6. Putting aside potential appreciable impacts of a high density development, high density in and of itself should be considered an impact to the character of the Village which is predominantly low density. 7. Is there a market demand for assisted living in this geographic area? Is there a market demand for senior living in this geographic area? Are the rentals competitively priced with other facilities with similar amenities? Will the new senior housing at SUNY Purchase result in a need for fewer units at 900 King? How will the Village be protected against a scenario whereby the senior housing at 1313/92/650836v1 11/14/18 900 King is built but not occupied thereby resulting in another empty or near empty structure, or conversion to more traditional rental apartments? Please explain. 8. In the Traffic Study, the vehicle trips generated by the existing occupancy level of the building should be compared with the proposed condition to help demonstrate the “real feel” of the project’s traffic impacts. 9. How does 40% gross land coverage compare with gross land coverage in other existing PUDs? How was the 40% figure arrived at? 10. Consider eliminating the townhouses to preserve more open space. 11. How does the proposed project compare with the Atria? 12. Demonstrate compliance with the NYS Fire Code, including means of egress from the building for the staff and residents. 13. Discuss and explain the plans for disposal of medical and hazardous material from the assisted living facility. 14. Notwithstanding the “will serve” letter, does Suez have capacity to meet the projected water supply demand? The concern is that a majority of water supply in this area of the Village comes from Greenwich and when we are in drought alert residents are advised to restrict water use. 15. How will a 7AM construction start time affect planned renovations for the public school during summer months? How will that construction time affect school drop-off and children walking to school? After school activities should be considered in determining construction time frames. 16. Consider a prohibition of construction on Sundays. 17. The assisted living units should be considered “dwelling units” for the purposes of calculating the number of units of affordable housing that are required for the project. The Applicant should consider providing additional affordable housing units beyond what is currently proposed. 18. If other properties currently utilize the drainage basin on the subject property, how will this drainage be accommodated during construction? 19. Regarding page 6-11, repairs to Arbor Drive should be performed by the Applicant as needed during construction; not just when construction is complete. 20. Clarify and explain the height of the units and building height. 1313/92/650836v1 11/14/18 21. Consolidated Edison should confirm (and such confirmation should be independently analyzed) that its existing infrastructure can handle the increased electricity demand. The Arbors experiences blackouts that also affect properties on Country Ridge Drive. 22. The mass of the buildings appear too large for the property. 23. Age restriction should be 62+ to alleviate traffic and school impacts. 24. Explain how the age restriction will be enforced. 25. Capability of emergency services to address the increased demand from the proposed project needs further study. The adequacy of proposed ingress and egress for the property for emergency vehicles should be confirmed. 26. How will the proposed senior housing in nearby Purchase impact mutual aid for emergency services. 27. In Chapter 5 of the DEIS, the Applicant expresses its opinion that the only mitigation required under Chapter 245 of the Village Code is for the areas where there is a net conversion of pervious to impervious surface cover within the regulated wetland buffer. According to the Applicant’s calculations, the disturbed area within the wetland buffer which would be subject to mitigation amounts to 0.053 acres. The Planning Board has not historically interpreted or applied Chapter 245 of the Village Code in this manner. Rather, the Planning Board has historically interpreted and applied the Code such that any land disturbance within regulated wetland buffer is subject to mitigation, regardless of whether the surface of the land is pervious or impervious prior to the disturbance. Applying Chapter 245 of the Village Code consistent with the Planning Board’s historic interpretation results in a requirement for mitigation of 2.79 acres of disturbance (versus 0.053 acres of disturbance under the Applicant’s interpretation). This is a significant difference. Under the current Project, it is unlikely the Applicant has sufficient opportunity to locate all of the 5.58 acres of required wetland mitigation on-site. However, Chapter 245 of the Village Code provides an opportunity for off-site mitigation. Off-site mitigation was utilized by the Planning Board in a recent application for a single family home where sufficient on-site area was not available to meet the total mitigation requirement. In that case, the applicant proposed certain mitigation efforts such as removal of invasive species within Rich Manor Park in order to meet the mitigation requirements of the Village Code. The Planning Board also notes that Chapter 245 of the Village Code was adopted by the Board of Trustees in 1994 and therefore was not in existence when the office building at 900 King Street was first developed in the late 1970’s. Thus, it cannot be said that impacts to the wetland buffer as regulated under today’s 1313/92/650836v1 11/14/18 requirements were the subject of mitigation when the office building was constructed. In summary, the Planning Board recommends requiring compliance with the current requirements of Chapter 245 of the Village Code and upholding its historic interpretation and application of Chapter 245 to require all activities in the regulated wetland buffer to be mitigated, regardless of whether the surface of the land is currently pervious or impervious. III. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Board of Trustees consider a reduced size and reduced density alternative to the Project. Dated: Rye Brook, New York November 13, 2018 On motion by Ms. Schoen, seconded by Mr. Morlino, Mr. Michal Nowak, Village Engineer, called the roll: ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Ayes: DRECHSLER, GRZAN, MORLINO, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA, ZAHL Nays: Abstain: Excused: GOODMAN APPROVED AT THE NOVEMBER 13, 2018 MEETING OF THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF 6-0.