HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.10.20 F.P. Clark - Hardesty Hanover Traffic Memo 555 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite C-301 • Rye, NY 10580
T: 914.967.6540
www.hardestyhanover.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Paul S. Rosenberg and Village of Rye Brook Trustees
Date: November 10, 2020
Subject: Traffic and Off-Street Parking Demand – Expanded Review – Townhouse/Assisted
Living – Independent Living Development, 900 King Street, Rye Brook, New York
As requested, we have completed additional analyses of the Applicant’s proposal to determine if a sufficient
number of parking spaces will be provided to serve each of the components of the proposed Residential
Development of the Subject Property. The analysis includes a review of the Village Code parking
requirements for each type of residential use, the Applicant’s proposal for parking and a comparison to
parking generation information provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in
“Parking Generation Manual,” 5th Edition, January 2019.
The memorandum also provides an overview of traffic impact and conclusions.
Project Description
This Application has been through a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) process and the Village is at the point of accepting the FEIS and
preparing a Findings Statement, which will represent the Village’s understanding and findings on impacts
and need for any type of mitigation off-site, as it relates to traffic and to confirm or expand upon their
understanding of parking demand and the provision of providing on-site parking to serve each of the
components of this proposed residential development.
The Applicant proposes the following:
LAND USE NUMBER OF UNITS
Age-Restricted Townhouse 20
Independent Living 136
Assisted Living 85 units/94 beds
Overall Traffic Scope and Summary
The Applicant prepared a detailed traffic analysis of 10 intersections along King Street from Anderson Hill
Road to the north to Betsy Brown Road to the south in the Village of Port Chester. It included the
Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway Interchange ramp intersections at King Street.
The existing traffic volumes were based on traffic counts conducted by the Applicant on at least two
occasions and supplemental traffic data obtained by our office to verify that the traffic count data used by
2
the Applicant in the Traffic Report was appropriate and represented typical traffic conditions and traffic
levels in the vicinity of the site and generally along King Street.
After much discussion, the baseline traffic volumes provided by the Applicant and confirmed by our office in
separate counts, indicated that the baseline traffic volumes were appropriate and represented typical
conditions in the King Street Corridor.
Findings of the traffic analysis, which included capacity analyses of an existing, no-build, build and build
conditions with mitigation indicates that although this development will add traffic back into the roadway
system during the time periods noted above, area roads can accommodate this traffic; however, with
modifications to the current traffic signal timing plans specifically at the intersections of King Street at Arbor
Drive and King Street at the Blind Brook High School/Middle School access drive/Glenville Street
intersections.
We acknowledge that there are traffic delays found along King Street during peak periods and more
recently identified during off-peak periods. This is due to the high volume of traffic on King Street, which
functions as a major connector between the Parkway Interchange ramps, Westchester County Airport and
other crossroads in the Village of Rye Brook and further to the south in the Village of Port Chester.
Parking Analysis
There has been a significant concern with the number of parking spaces proposed for the Subject Property,
with the proposed residential development and each of its components. As noted above, this development
includes age-restricted townhouses, independent living and assisted living. The Applicant referenced the
Village parking requirements, which was provided in a table in both the DEIS and FEIS.
Information provided by the Applicant is found in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. This table references the
proposed land uses, number of units, existing zoning requirements applied to this development, a reference
to ITE guidelines, a proposed revision to zoning requirements, as necessary, and the project parking ratio
to be provided on-site.
The attached Table 1 prepared by our office uses information provided by the Applicant and included in
their DEIS and FEIS and expanded by our office to provide additional information for consideration to
determine if adequate parking will be provided on-site as part of this development, if approved and built.
This table provides the three categories noted above, including age-restricted townhouses, independent
living and assisted living units. In this table we provide the ITE range of parking demand rates and includes
the low and high number of spaces needed for each type of land use. It also includes the 85th percentile
rates provided by ITE, which represents the higher than average typical parking demand used by Traffic
and Parking Consultants for all different types of Parking Studies. Comparing the high side of the parking
rates provided by ITE and the 85th percentile parking rate also provided by ITE and referenced both by the
Applicant and referenced by our office during our reviews of both the DEIS and FEIS are compared to the
Applicant’s proposed parking supply for each individual land use.
For the age-restricted Townhouse, the proposal is to construct 20 residential units and provide 2.50 spaces
per unit, which is the Village Code requirement and the high side of the ITE parking rates for this type of
3
development. It is also important to note that the Applicant actually used the non-age-restricted parking
rates and; therefore, should be considered conservative in this evaluation. Typically, the 85th percentile
parking rate of 1.52 spaces per unit would be used to determine parking need. However, the Applicant
proposes 50 parking spaces. It is acknowledged that the Townhouse portion of this development is
separate from the other land uses and; therefore, any overflow parking will not have convenient additional
parking available for guests and other visitors.
For the Independent Living portion of this development the Applicant proposes 136 units. The range found
in the ITE Parking Generation Handbook indicates that 0.45 to 0.67 parking spaces per unit was found to
be needed, with the 85th percentile rate of 0.67 spaces per unit. Using the high side parking generation
rates indicates 92 spaces would be needed and the Applicant is proposing to construct 136 spaces or 44
additional parking spaces to serve the Independent Living portion of this development.
For the Assisted Living portion within this overall development it will provide 85 units, with a total of 94
beds. Again, using the ITE parking generation rates and ranges it indicates that 0.27 to 0.60 parking
spaces per bed would be needed. The 85th percentile parking generation rate found in ITE indicates 0.58
spaces per bed would be appropriate. The comparison indicates that 57 spaces would be needed for the
high side of the parking rates and 55 spaces would be needed for the 85th percentile rate. The Applicant is
proposing to construct 52 parking spaces for the assisted living. Therefore, the proposed parking is less
than desirable.
This development would include a parking garage and additional outdoor parking spaces surrounding the
proposed building. Therefore, 188 parking spaces will be constructed specifically for the independent living
and the assisted living portions of this overall development. When the age-restricted townhouse portion of
the development is included the Applicant proposes a total of 238 spaces, although the Village with existing
zoning would require 266 spaces and under the revised zoning requirement applied to this proposed
development 229 spaces would be required. Therefore the Applicant is providing 9 additional spaces
above the proposed revised zoning requirement to be applied to this development.
To provide the Village with additional information, Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of the Age-
Restricted Townhouse development and indicates the 50 parking spaces to be available and provides on
an hourly basis, based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, the hourly parking demand for the 20
townhouses. To be conservative the Applicant used a non-age restricted development. It indicates that all
parking could be occupied overnight; however, there would be a significant reduction in parking demand
throughout the day and as low as 18 spaces needed at 12:00 Noon. Parking demand increases as the
afternoon continues into early evening reaching capacity at 12:00 Midnight in a non-age restricted
development.
Figure 2 provides a graphic illustration of the parking demand and availability for the independent living and
the assisted living portion of this proposed development. The Site Plan provides 188 parking spaces for
the combined land uses. It is important to note that these two land uses will have a shared parking
component so that residents and/or visitors of either the independent living and the assisted living will be
able to use parking spaces throughout the parking garage and outside the building. It is assumed parking
spaces may not be specifically designated for a resident; therefore, a parking space can be used by
anyone, either a resident or a visitor.
4
In Figure 2 the total parking demand for the independent living and assisted living will be well below the
capacity of available parking. However, there has been a concern that Rye Brook is unique and will have a
higher level of parking demand which reflects a resident in need of assistance, such as a special health
aide or someone preparing meals or cleaning their unit. However, it is important to note that this type of
development includes these services and it is very likely that many residents will not require additional
assistance. To address this concern we have reviewed the Applicant’s breakdown of anticipated staffing
levels, which is referenced in Table 1.4-5 in the FEIS, which indicates staff, by category and time of day. It
was previously stated that 70 employees would be located on the site throughout the day; however, this is
not necessarily the case. The information provided by the Applicant and presented in the EIS documents
indicates the breakdown of staff to be present on the site weekday mornings through afternoon, afternoon
through evenings, overnight and include the assisted living resident aides, dining staff, housekeeping and
building and site maintenance, as well as administration and social activity.
The ITE parking generation rates used include these staff activities; therefore, it would be inappropriate to
add this staffing information on top the parking data provided in Figure 2. However, to be conservative
even if half of the anticipated staffing levels were added on top of the parking generation information
provided by ITE on an hourly basis there would still be more than adequate parking to serve the needs of
residents.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that the Applicant’s Plan provides for adequate parking throughout the day
and evenings. Further, to be conservative and address the specific concerns of the Village the attached
figure, which is a reduction of the overall Site Plan, indicates the potential locations to provide land banked
parking spaces. This land banked parking space consideration would be a parking space shown on a final
Site Plan, which is included in engineering of the site, such as drainage and coverage; however, would not
be constructed. An approximate estimate for land banked parking spaces would be 35+ spaces, after
occupancy within the first year, actual parking counts and potentially traffic counts could be conducted by
the Applicant to determine actual parking demand and, if it is identified as additional parking is needed, the
Applicant would be required by the Village to construct these previously approved parking spaces within a
certain amount of time to provide relief to the parking demand of the overall site. It would be recommended
that actual parking counts be conducted at 50 and 75 percent of occupancy.
The same approach could be implemented by the Village regarding traffic impacts. Often traffic counts are
required after a development is completed and occupied to a certain percentage and adjusted to reflect 100
percent of occupancy. If additional traffic is being generated and higher than the previously estimated site
traffic generation, an analyses indicates that further mitigation may be necessary and the Applicant would
be obligated to consider and implement additional mitigation, if feasible.
Michael A. Galante
Director of Traffic
Hardesty & Hanover, LLC
cc: Christopher Bradbury
y:\shared\offices\nyr\traffic2010-11\538.693 - f4133.02 - 900 king st redevelopment rye brook\word\rye20-000.mag.docx: td