Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.06.2020 FP Clark Memo555 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite C-301 Rye, NY 10580 T: 914.967.6540 www.hardestyhanover.com MEMORANDUM To: Paul S. Rosenberg, Mayor, and the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Date: February 6, 2020, Revised February 7, 2020 Subject: 900 King Street, Petition to Amend the PUD Regulations and an Application for a PUD Concept Plan – Review of the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement As requested, we have reviewed the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (pFEIS) dated January 3, 2020, submitted to the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees by 900 King Street Owner, LLC, as part of the petition to amend Section 250-7 E, the Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations of the Village Code, and the application for a PUD Concept Plan regarding the property located at 900 King Street, Town of Rye Tax Parcel 129.68-1-13. The Proposed Action would construct 241 units of age-targeted housing and related infrastructure, including driveways, walkways, garage and surface parking, site lighting, signage and stormwater management facilities. The Applicant submitted a draft pFEIS on May 14, 2019 for the Board’s consideration. The May 2019 pFEIS had made some reductions to the density of project. However, based on comments received from the Board, Village Staff and Consultants, the pFEIS has been revised. With respect to the Village Board’s comments, the Applicant has further reduced the density and overall square footage of the revised project from the revised Proposed Action presented in the May 2019 pFEIS. For the Board’s convenience, we have prepared the following summary of the revised Proposed Action: Original Proposed Action May 2019 Proposed Action January 2020 Proposed Action Gross Floor Area (SF) 445,000 376,182 355,902 (20% reduction) Number of IL units 160 152 136 (15% reduction) Number of AL units 85 85 85 Number of Townhomes 24 20 20 Average size of IL unit (SF) 1,219 1,069 1,119 Number of IL Bedrooms 301 228 236 IL unit mix 18 3-bedroom 99 2-bedroom 43 1-bedroom 12 3-bedroom 52 2-bedroom 88 1-bedroom 13 3-bedroom 74 2-bedroom 49 1-bedroom AL unit mix 26 Memory care 50 1-bedroom 9 2-bedroom 25 Memory care 51 1-bedroom 9 2-bedroom 25 Memory care 51 1-bedroom 9 2-bedroom Townhome unit mix 24 2-bedroom 20 2-bedroom 20 2-bedroom Our office conducted a completeness and substantive review of the pFEIS and concept plans dated January 3, 2020, on behalf of the Village Board of Trustees in its capacity as Lead Agency. Our comments regarding the document and plans are included in this memorandum along with comments from Village staff. Other commenters reviewing the document and plans will submit comments separately, including Dolph Rotfeld Engineering and HDR. Based on our review, we believe the pFEIS is not ready for acceptance by the Lead Agency. We recommend that the Applicant be directed to revise the pFEIS and plans to address all the comments provided during the current review by the Lead Agency, and Village staff and consultants. COMMENTS Chapter 1, Revised Proposed Project 1. Page 1-4, Section 1.4, Revised Proposed Project, first paragraph: The total number of proposed units should be 241 not 238. 2. Page 1-7, Section 1.4.1.3, Townhouses: The number of bedrooms in each townhouse should be noted. Chapter 2, Environmental Analysis 3. Page 2-25, Section 2.6: In reviewing the stormwater calculations, even though a decrease in flow is proposed, under current events, the storm drain at corner of the school entrance drive at Harkness park overflows. The Applicant should address if there is a way to hold back more water in the retention basin and meter it out under the 1- through 25-year storms. (M. Nowak) 4. Page 2-32, Section 2.8.3: The portion of the sentence that states, “even in winter when there are no leaves on the deciduous trees” should be removed. 5. Page 2-36, Section 2.9.2: The pFEIS states that the Applicant estimates that the Revised Proposed Action Project would have an assessed value of approximately $29,715,260 based on the income capitalization approach. The Town Tax Assessor has reviewed this number and was unable to determine how the Applicant arrived at this estimate. The estimate is not a supportable assessed value based on the information that has been presented to the Town Assessor thus far. The pFEIS should be revised to include information to support the estimated assessed value. (C. Bradbury) 6. Page 2-40, Section 2.10.1.2, EMS – Increase in Call Volume, third paragraph: In several locations throughout the pFEIS the applicant has provided a response that a nurse will be onsite 24 hours a day to assist with the evaluation of residents that fall in response to concerns raised about EMS calls due to people who fall and may need assistance. The pFEIS should clarify that a nurse would be available 24/7 for both the IL and AL facilities. This is implied but not indicated specifically in the pFEIS. The plans provided in the most recent pFEIS submission only shows one nurse’s station on the 4th floor on the AL facility (on the memory care floor). This is both a significant distance from the lower floor of the IL facility, and we question whether the nurse could even leave the memory care area to respond to falls. If additional nurses or nurse’s stations are planned, this should be indicated by the Applicant and location(s) noted so that the adequacy of response plan and response time for falls can be properly evaluated by EMS. (C. Bradbury) 7. Page 2-45, Section 2.10.3, Open Space: The last paragraph should be revised to identify that the first sentence is the Applicant’s opinion. In addition, the following sentence should be added to the paragraph: “During Site Plan Review, the Board of Trustees will determine whether the “on-site recreation areas,” as described by the Applicant, meet the requirements of Section 209-14 for a suitably located and usable park for passive or active recreational purposes, or whether the Applicant will be required to pay a fee in lieu of such parkland.” 8. Page 2-47, Section 2.10.5, Senior Services, first paragraph: The pFEIS should be revised to state that the Senior Center is open to Village residents aged 55 and older instead of 60 and older. The pFEIS should also be revised to strike the language “and free blood pressure self- monitoring program.” (E. Rotfeld) 9. Page 2-48, Section 2.10.5, Senior Services, first and second paragraphs: The paragraph should be revised as follows: “The Village also provides a Senior Dial-A-Ride Transportation service for its senior citizens via a 20-passanger bus for $0.50 per ride, or free for seniors who can no longer drive or who need assistance (i.e., carrying grocery bags). On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, seniors can reserve a ride on the bus to and from the Senior Center, as well as to local doctor’s appointments. Senior citizens can register to take the bus to two grocery stores in Port Chester on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Most days Wednesdays the bus is reserved for group outings organized by the Senior Center, such as going to the movie theater, which can be reserved from interested seniors. Fees for group outings vary depending upon the destination. to the movies are $2 for a member and $4 for non-members. Many days Fridays the bus is reserved for special events, including shopping, museums, theater, local eateries, and casinos. trips to Arthur Avenue, Empire City Casino, John Jay Homestead, and Westchester Broadway Theater. Fees for special events range from $2 for a member to attend a trip to Arthur Avenue through +/- $200 for a Broadway show $60 for a non-member to see a play at the Hunterdon Hills Playhouse. Dial-A-Ride service begins at 8:30 AM and ends as late as 2:30 PM. On August 27, 2019, AKRF staff spoke with Elizabeth Rotfeld, the Village of Rye Brook’s Deputy Village Clerk/Senior Coordinator to discuss the utilization and capacity of the Village’s Senior Center. Ms. Rotfeld stated that over the past decade, attendance at meals (e.g., lunch) has declined, while the number of activities and participants has grown and activities has declined. In the past, lunches were attended by an average of approximately 40 residents, whereas currently, an average of approximately 20 seniors attend lunch. Similarly, fewer residents stay at the center all day than in the past. Special lectures, holiday activities, and special lunches are still well-attended. Based on the capacity of the Senior Center and its current utilization, it is Ms. Rotfeld’s opinion that the Senior Center has the capacity to accommodate additional seniors, such as those that may reside in the Revised Proposed Project.” (E. Rotfeld) 10. Page 2-48, Section 2.11: The FEIS should state if the upgrades to the water system will also serve the residents North of Anderson Hill Road in Bellefair, Reckson Office Park, etc. It is recommended that the water system upgrades be made prior to construction of the project. (M. Nowak) 11. Page 2-51, Section 2.11.3: The FEIS should be revised to explain if emergency power will serve critical facilities such as kitchen, laundry rooms, climate control, etc. The section should also note how many diesel generators, the sizes of the generators that would be required, and the petroleum bulk storage permits required, if they exceed WCDOH bulk storage quantities for the site. (M. Nowak) 12. Page 2-51, Section 2.11.3: The FEIS should also note if the townhouses will be allowed to have generators. (M. Nowak) 13. Page 2-57, Section 2.12.8, Parking, Table 2.12-4: The total parking under the ITE Guideline should be 177 not 180. Chapter 3, Response to Comments 14. Page 3-61, Response 69: The comment “or in this case, becoming fully leased” should not be struck and should remain to be consistent with the Village’s position regarding any potential PILOT. (C. Bradbury) 15. Page 3-68, Response 80: The pFEIS indicates that “no school-aged children are anticipated to live within the Revised Proposed Project”. This was added by the Applicant in the prior pFEIS submission (Redlined to May 24, 2019). The original pFEIS language indicated that “Based on this data, as well as the revision to the project’s age restriction, it is the Applicant’s opinion that it is extremely unlikely that school-aged children would reside within the Revised Proposed Project”. The language should be revised as follows: “Based on this data, as well as the revision to the project’s age restriction, it is the Applicant’s opinion that it is extremely unlikely that school-aged children would reside within the Revised Proposed Project.” (C. Bradbury) 16. Page 3-72, Response 83: The pFEIS should be revised to place a period after the word “location” and striking “for the Village’s existing carter.” Who the carter would be is irrelevant as it could be any private hauling service company licensed to pick up private food waste. (C. Bradbury) 17. Page 3-80, Response 84: The second paragraph should be revised as requested in Comment 9 of this memorandum regarding the Senior Center. (E. Rotfeld) 18. Page 3-83, Response 88: The response states that the Applicant will contribute funds to the Village’s current I&I program as mitigation. The language stating that the Applicant intends to mitigate impacts through a monetary contribution in an amount equivalent to the per gallon contribution of recently approved projects should be removed. The response should be revised to state that a monetary contribution, project-based mitigation, or a combination of both will be implemented. (M. Nowak) 19. Page 3-95, Response 113: The total parking under the ITE Guideline should be 177 not 180. 20. Page 3-106, response 117: The response should be revised to note if cooling towers and/or Ammonia chillers are proposed for cooling. If so, Fire and EMS need to know about these chillers and any emergency response required. Cooling towers have noise, legionnaires’ disease risks and utilize large quantities of water for cooling. If proposed, these topics should also be addressed in the FEIS. The section should also note if gasoline or diesel generators would be used, the size of the generators that would be required, if stationary air permitting is required, and the petroleum bulk storage permits required, if they exceed WCDOH bulk storage quantities for the site. (M. Nowak) Appendix D The Applicant should confirm that the outstanding comments below regarding Appendix D will be addressed once the SWPPP has been updated to reflect the current revisions. 21. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The townhouses shall capture full stormwater runoff as per the Village Code. A Curve Number (Cn) of 98 shall be utilized. (M. Nowak) 22. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 35: Hardened materials shall be disposed of offsite. They cannot be reused onsite or crushed and reused onsite. The FEIS should be revised to correct this information. (M. Nowak) 23. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 36: This section of the FEIS should be revised to note that if a spill occurs, the Village Public Works Department shall be notified immediately, and DEC Spill response hotline called immediately. Spill Kits shall be onsite and readily available. (M. Nowak) 24. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 37: The FEIS should be revised to state that dumpsters shall have covers for any unit collecting food trash. (M. Nowak) 25. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 39: The FEIS should be revised to state that all storm drains shall be cleaned yearly and reports filed with the Village Public Works Department. (M. Nowak) 26. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 43: The FEIS should be revised to note that the Village’s BMP reporting form shall be completed on an annual basis and reported to the Village. Also, it should be noted that streets shall be swept with sweeper. (M. Nowak) 27. Appendix D, Preliminary Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Page 43, Following Construction: The Applicant should consider mulching mowers, mulching leaves and other green techniques. This Section of the FEIS should be revised to follow the DEC standards for Phosphorous and Nitrogen reduction. In addition, fertilizers cannot be spread within proximity to wetlands and drainage ponds. (M. Nowak) PUD Concept Plans 28. Conceptual Site Plans, Sheet A101: The parking plans and striping plan use two different handicap parking space symbols. The Applicant should verify that the accepted NY MUTCD Handicap Symbol is being used on the plans. (M. Nowak) 29. Conceptual Site Plans, Sheet A-100: It should be clarified on the plans if the floor drains in the parking garage are being treated with an oil water separator. If they are, the location of the oil water separator should be shown on the plans as this would be a very large unit. In addition, the location of the grease interceptors for cooking facilities should be shown on the plan and the size of the required tanks should be noted. (M. Nowak) 30. Conceptual Site Plans: The site plans should be revised to show areas of snow storage. 31. Conceptual Building Plans: The lower level parking area should have fresh air exhaust and/or carbon monoxide control systems in place. Explain how such a large area will “breathe and vent.” (M. Nowak) 32. Conceptual Building Plans: The lower level garage should have some means of secondary access through stairwell or some other way. (M. Nowak) 33. Conceptual Site Plans: The lower level parking garage has been modified from having two remote entrances/exits to a single point of entry/exit. The Emergency Services Task Force (ESTF) recommends maintaining two remote points of entry/exit to and from the parking garage. The Applicant has responded that a second vehicular entry/exit point is not need for traffic flow and would adversely affect the amount of grading required on the Site, the steep slopes created on the Site, and overall amount of Site impervious coverage. The ESTF stresses that the site grading and impervious coverage considerations should not be given precedence over public safety. The initial submittal included two remote vehicle entry/exits and the reason given by the applicant for the reduction to a single point of entry/exit are unsatisfactory. The ESTF requests a re-design of the parking area showing two remote vehicle entry/exits along with a designed mechanical ventilation system adequate to purge the entire garage area of smoke and/or noxious fumes in a fire/smoke event. (ESTF) 34. Conceptual Site Plans: No less than two of the proposed five elevators serving the IL building and garage be sized to accept an EMS gurney. The AL building should also be equipped with 2 such sized elevators. (ESTF) 35. Conceptual Site Plans: The roof and parapet design will greatly hinder any attempted roof firefighting or rescue operation and will place firefighters and the public at an elevated risk accessing or escaping the building to/from the roof during a fire event. The proposed parapet height of 69 inches and 93.5 inches will also block any view from the ground of persons who may be trapped and/or incapacitated on the roof. A re-design of the roofline/parapet to enhance public and first-responder safety should be provided. (ESTF) 36. Conceptual Site Plans: The applicant should provide dedicated points of “cab-in” Fire Department Ladder and Bucket Truck access to the detached memory care building, and to the main building such that the roof of each level of the main building can be accessed independently of the other. Cab-in apparatus access points are to be approved by the ESTF. (ESTF) 37. Conceptual Site Plans: The applicant has addressed communications inside the building, but has failed to address communications between emergency personnel inside that building and emergency personnel outside the building, or with remote emergency command posts. (ESTF) 38. Conceptual Site Plans: The site plan is devoid of an area(s) near or adjacent to the main entrances dedicated for the parking/staging of emergency vehicles. Such areas eliminate the inevitable traffic conflict between emergency vehicles and private vehicles located at/near the main entrances during an emergency. The Applicant should revise the site plans to provide such areas at or near the main entrances of the IL and Al buildings. (ESTF) If you have questions, please feel free to contact us. We look forward to discussing our comments with you at your February 11, 2020 meeting. Michael A. Galante Managing Principal Sarah L. Brown, AICP Senior Associate/Planning cc: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney Peter Feroe, AICP, for the Applicant Mark Miller. Esq., for the Applicant James Ryan, RLA, for the Applicant