No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.08.2020 NEW SUBMISSION 900 King Updates to FEISMemorandum To: Peter S. Duncan (George Comfort & Sons) From: Peter Feroe, AICP (AKRF, Inc.) Date: September 8, 2020 Re: 900 King: Updates to FEIS cc: Anthony Veneziano, Esq. and Mark Miller, Esq. (Veneziano & Associates) This memo summarizes the changes that were made to the FEIS based on comments from the Board of Trustees at the August 11, 2020 meeting. The memo also summarizes comments made by the Board that, for the reasons set forth below, either do not require updates to the FEIS or for which updates have not yet been made. A. EDITS MADE TO THE FEIS In response to the Board of Trustees comments at the August 11, 2020 meeting, we have made the following edits to the FEIS:  Added a description (text and table) of the anticipated staffing levels of the project to FEIS Section 1.4.2, “Site Operation.” This information was presented in the DEIS, Section 2.4.2, “Site Operation,” and has not materially changed.  Reiterated that project staff will assist residents up who have fallen if it is safe to do so. Specifically, in Section 2.10.1.2, “EMS—Increase in Call Volume,” the following two sentences were added to the discussion: “If a resident has hit their head, is unsure of how they fell, or seems unsteady, the staff will call 911. If, however, the resident does not have pain, trained staff will evaluate the resident and will help the resident up if it is safe to do so without calling 911.”  Provided several clarifications to Section 2.10.5, “Senior Services,” with respect to the amenities that the project will offer to residents. Specifically: o Clarified that “on-Site” hot meals are provided to residents; and, o Added the following paragraph concerning transportation services:  “The Revised Proposed Project would provide transportation services for project residents. These services would include regular trips to local places of interest, such as grocery stores, shopping centers, and cultural institutions. Trips to the Rye Brook Senior Center, if desired by project residents, would also be provided to project residents by the Revised Proposed Project. In addition, the Revised Proposed Project anticipates providing transportation and programming for special events on an ad hoc basis.”  In response to concerns about the safety of a the proposed crosswalk at the terminus of the on-Site pedestrian path at Arbor Drive, the FEIS was clarified to state that the design and details of the potential crosswalk would be reviewed during Site Plan approval. Peter S. Duncan 2 September 8, 2020 B. COMMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THE FEIS With respect to the following questions and comments, edits to the text of the FEIS were not required; however, the following clarifications are offered.  Adequacy of on-Site parking. The Applicant understands that the Village has asked their Transportation consultant to explain why the amount of on-Site parking proposed is adequate. The following table, comprised of information in the FEIS, may also help demonstrate the adequacy of the parking proposed. As shown, the amount of parking proposed exceeds the Village’s current zoning requirements as well as the ITE recommendations. 900 King Parking Program Use Number of Units Existing Zoning Requirement (Applied to Project) ITE Guideline (Applied to Project) Revised Zoning Requirement (Applied to Project) Project Parking Ratio (Provided on-Site) Age-Restricted Townhouse 20 2.5 per unit1 (50) 1.52 per unit (31) 2.5 per unit (50) 2.5 per unit (50) Independent Living 136 0.75 per unit2 (102) 0.67 per unit (91) 1 per unit (136) 1 per unit (136) Assisted Living 85 units 94 beds 0.75 per unit2 (64) 0.58 per bed (55) 0.5 per unit (43) 0.6 per unit (52) Total Number of Spaces Required/Provided 216 177 229 238 Notes: 1. Parking requirement for two-family dwellings. Section 250-6G(c)(1)(b)[3] of the Rye Brook Zoning Ordinance. It is noted that these age-restricted townhomes could also qualify as a “senior living facility” within the Village’s zoning, which have a parking requirement of 0.75 per unit. 2. Senior Living Facilities, defined in the existing PUD regulations as a “range of living accommodations” within age-restricted housing.  With respect to scheduling shift changes to avoid school arrival and dismissal times, the FEIS, in Section 2.12.9, “Traffic: Mitigation,” states, “To further avoid and mitigate potential adverse impacts, the Applicant has committed to staggering the shifts of the Site’s employees so that shift changes do not occur during school arrival or dismissal times, further reducing the potential for conflict between Site-generated traffic and pedestrians and reducing trip generation during times of peak congestion on area roadways.” C. COMMENTS NOT REQUIRING UPDATES TO THE FEIS During the August 11, 2020 meeting, individual members of the Board of Trustees made statements indicative of their preliminary evaluation of the certain environmental analyses included in the FEIS. We believe that these statement do not require changes to be made to the FEIS as they do not question the analyses in the FEIS; rather, the statements indicate potential findings that may be made based on those analyses.  Open Space and Recreation – Comments were made indicating a preliminary finding that the open space and recreation areas provided on-Site are not adequate to meet the needs of the project’s population and that a recreation fee may be imposed on the project. It is understood that final Board findings on this matter would be made at the time of Site Plan approval, pursuant to §209-15 of the Village Code and that the FEIS accurately presents factual information regarding the project in this regard. Peter S. Duncan 3 September 8, 2020  Construction Period Noise Wall – Comments were made indicating preliminary concurrence with the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant’s recommendation that a temporary noise wall be installed along the east and west sides of the Project Site during construction. It is understood that a final Board decision on this matter would be made as part of the Statement of Findings adopted with respect to the Proposed Zoning and PUD Concept Plan and that the FEIS, as concurred with by the Village’s consultant, presents an accurate analysis of the potential impacts.  Construction Start Time Waiver – Comments were made indicating a disinclination to adopt the proposed local law that would allow the Board of Trustees the ability to allow construction noise to start at 7 A.M. rather than 8 A.M. upon a Board finding that doing so would mitigate potential adverse traffic impacts due to a Site’s proximity to a sensitive generator and receptor of traffic (i.e., the school). It is understood that final Board findings on this matter would be made during the Statement of Findings adopted with respect to the Proposed Zoning and PUD Concept Plan.  COVD-19 Impacts – Comments were made regarding the impacts of COVID-19 on the architectural design and marketability of the proposed project. Based on discussions with the Applicant’s architect, PerkinsEastman (which has a world-leading senior living practice), as well as recent participation in professional seminars on senior living facilities post-COVID, it is understood that design changes to senior living facilities necessitated by COVID-19 are relatively minor and do not materially affect the proposed site plan. Regarding marketability, it is understood that the market for senior living products remains strong and is expected to significantly increase within the next five to ten years as the size of the population most likely to utilize those facilities dramatically increases.  Sprint Tower – Comments were made regarding the status of removing the Sprint antennae from the existing office building. It is recognized that adoption of the FEIS as complete, as well as the subsequent adoption of Findings and Zoning, do not immediately implicate the status of the antennae. It is understood that it is the Applicant’s responsibility to have the antennae removed prior to demolishing the building. D. COMMENTS FOR WHICH UPDATES HAVE NOT YET BEEN MADE The following are topics with respect to which one or more Board members requested the FEIS be edited. However, with respect to these topics, it was the Applicant’s prior understanding from the Village Counsel that these items could remain as presented in the July 2, 2020 pFEIS, and instead be the subject of Board findings at the time of Zoning or Site Plan approval.  Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Mitigation. The FEIS notes that the Applicant is responsible for mitigating the increase in sanitary sewer flows attributable to the project. However, the precise method of the mitigation – a specific project or a fee-in-lieu – was not specified in the FEIS. The FEIS could set the mitigation fee at the Village’s prior established rate of $100 per unit (or, $24,000). Alternatively, the FEIS could remain as is and leave open the possibility of having the Applicant undertake a specific project, at a comparable cost, which would be determined at the time of site plan approval.  Second Entrance to the Underground Garage. The Board expressed its opinion that a second vehicular entrance to the underground garage was likely necessary. It was the Applicant’s understanding from the Village’s Counsel that the approach to this topic, as included in the July 2, 2020 pFEIS, was, from a SEQRA perspective, an acceptable approach. Specifically, the Applicant believed that, for this topic only, it was acceptable to present both the ESTF’s recommendation as well as the Applicant’s position. Further, the Applicant understood that, from a SEQRA and site- plan process perspective, it was acceptable for the Board to make its determination as to whether a second entrance was needed at the time of site plan approval, rather than at the FEIS stage. If the proposed PUD Concept Plan, as presented in the FEIS, needs to be edited for the purpose of the FEIS, the text and figures throughout the document can be updated to illustrate and describe the impacts of including the second garage entrance. Peter S. Duncan 4 September 8, 2020  Assessed Value – Members of the Board expressed their desire to have a more nuanced estimated assessed value presented in the FEIS. It was the Applicant’s understanding from the Village’s Counsel that from a SEQRA perspective, providing a range of potential assessed values in the FEIS was an acceptable approach. This approach was based on the fact that, as presented in the FEIS (which had been extensively reviewed by the Village’s staff and consultants), even at the lowest assessed value, the Project’s estimated tax revenues payable to the Village were greater than estimated costs incurred by the Village. (We also note that in addition to revenues to the Village, the School District would receive more than $500,000 in tax revenue with no increase in costs.) The Applicant is prepared to continue to work with the Town Assessor to develop a more nuanced estimated assessed value. Similarly, the Applicant’s consultants are willing to work with Village staff to revise the estimated municipal costs of the project, if needed. In addition, we understand that the Applicant is seeking a PILOT program regarding the Site’s future property tax payments that would also address open tax certiorari proceedings.