Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.18.2020 900 King Appendix MDRAFT M – 1 11/18/2020 Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary M.1. INTRODUCTION The Lead Agency requested that the Applicant describe and analyze the potential environmental impacts of reducing the density of the Revised Proposed Project ten units Independent Living (IL) units (the “Further Reduced Alternative”). This Appendix provides a description and summary of the relevant differences in potential environmental impacts of the Further Reduced Alternative from the Revised Proposed Project. The level of detail provided in this Appendix allows for a meaningful comparison of potential differences in site planning and environmental impacts, recognizing that complete site and architectural plans are not required for this analysis. In addition, this appendix identifies areas on the Project Site that are available for “landbank” parking; that is, areas of the Project Site not currently designated for parking, but that could be converted for parking uses should actual demand post-occupancy require the creation of more on-Site parking. M.2. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM AND PROJECT CHANGES M.2.1 BUILDINGS AND USES As with the Revised Proposed Project, the Further Reduced Alternative would include the construction of an integrated age-restricted residential community that includes IL, Assisted Living (AL) and age-restricted residential townhouse units. The Further Reduced Alternative would include 126 IL units, 20 townhouse units, and 85 AL units. This is a reduction of ten IL units; a 7.4 percent reduction in the number of IL units from the Revised Proposed Project and a 21.25 percent reduction in the number of IL units from the Original Project (see Table M-1). The internal layout of the IL building is anticipated to be substantially the same with this alternative. The ten IL unit reduction is anticipated to include one-bedroom or two-bedroom units, or some combination thereof. Table M-1 Program Comparison Project Component Original Project (DEIS) Revised Proposed Project & (Percent Reduction) Further Reduced Alternative & (Percent Reduction) Town Homes 24 units 20 units (16.7%) 20 units (16.7%) Assisted Living 85 units 85 units (0%) 85 units (0%) Independent Living 160 units 136 units (15%) 126 units (21.25%) Total 269 units 241 units (10.4%) 231 units (14.1%) 900 King Street Redevelopment 11/18/2020 2 DRAFT The Further Reduced Alternative would reduce the floor area of the IL building by approximately 10,000 sf from the Revised Proposed Project; a decrease of 4.3 percent from Revised Proposed Project and 26.5 percent from the Original Project (see Table M-2). In total, the Further Reduced Alternative would have 22.3 percent less gross square feet than the Original Project. Table M-2 Building Size Comparison Project Component Original Project (DEIS) Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Revised Proposed Project (FEIS) Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Further Reduced Alternative Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Town Homes 50,000 41,443 41,443 Assisted Living 90,000 80,381 80,381 Independent Living 305,000 234,078 224,078 Total 445,000 355,902 345,902 Note: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to Section 250-2 of the Village Code. The general site layout, circulation, and proposed footprints of the AL and townhouse buildings with the Further Reduced Alternative would be the same as the Revised Proposed Project. The IL building, however, would be reduced in footprint from the Revised Proposed Project by reducing the length of the building’s front wings (see Figure M-11). As such, three-story front of the IL building would be set back at least 170 feet from Arbor Drive, an increase of 23 feet from the Revised Proposed Project and 54 feet from the original (DEIS) project. As required by Section 209-3F of the Village Code, similar to what was included in the Revised Proposed Project, 14 dwelling units would be provided as affordable units with the Further Reduced Alternative in accordance with the requirements of Section 250-26.1F(3)(d) of the Village Zoning Code. This is one fewer unit than the Revised Proposed Project. It is anticipated that one of these units would be within the townhouses. The balance of the affordable units, 13 units, would be within the IL building. The same proportion of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units would be made available under the Village’s affordable housing program as are provided in the IL building. The Further Reduced Alternative would preserve approximately 11.10 acres of the Project Site, or 62 percent, as open space—an increase of 0.8 acres from the current condition of the Site and an increase of 0.09 acres from the Revised Proposed Project. It is anticipated that the amount of programmed open and recreational space serving the needs of the project residents would be the same as the Revised Proposed Project; 1.89 acres. M.2.2 SITE OPERATION The operations of the Further Reduced Alternative, including the number of staff, would be the substantially similar to the Revised Proposed Project. As discussed in Section M.12, “Traffic and Transportation,” the Further Reduced Alternative would result in two fewer vehicular trips in the Weekday Peak AM and PM Hours. 1 This figure also illustrates the potential second vehicular access to the underground garage as described in the FEIS. Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary DRAFT 3 11/18/2020 M.2.3 PARKING AND CIRCULATION Vehicular circulation on the Project Site with the Further Reduced Alternative would the same as the Revised Proposed Project. The number of on-Site parking spaces with the Further Reduced Alternative would be reduced by ten, to 228 (see Table M-3). The number of parking spaces proposed exceeds the number required by the current and Revised Proposed Zoning. Table M-3 Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Further Reduced Alternative Use Current PUD Zoning Revised Proposed Zoning Revised Proposed Project Independent Living (126 units) 0.75 per unit (94) 1 per unit (126) 126 Assisted Living (85 units/94 beds) 0.75 per unit (64) 0.5 per unit (43) 52 Townhouse (20 units) 0.75 per unit (15) 2.5 per unit (50) 50 Total 173 219 228 Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE Land Use 220 – Low Rise Multifamily The Lead Agency requested that the Applicant investigate the potential to “landbank” parking spaces on the Project Site. Landbanking parking is a process whereby additional areas of on-Site parking are identified on a proposed site plan, but are not constructed at the same time as the project. Rather, these areas are “banked,” and are only constructed if analyses of actual parking demand once the project is opened indicate the need for more parking. Figure M-2 illustrates the location of approximately 25 landbanked parking spaces identified by the Applicant. Implementation of the landbanked parking plan would result in an additional approximately 6,984 sf of impervious surface, 2,801 sf of which would be within 100 feet of an on-Site wetland. During Site Plan design, the Applicant would explore opportunities to use porous pavement or pavers within this area to reduce the increase in impervious coverage. M.2.4 OTHER PROJECT ELEMENTS The landscaping, grading, drainage, stormwater, and utilities improvement plans for the Further Reduced Alternative would be substantially similar to the Revised Proposed Project. M.3. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING M.3.1 LAND USE The Further Reduced Alternative would include the same land uses proposed for the Revised Proposed Project. M.3.2 PROPOSED DENSITY The Further Reduced Alternative would reduce the size of the project by approximately 10,000 sf and ten dwelling units from the Revised Proposed Project. Table M-4 compares 900 King Street Redevelopment 11/18/2020 4 DRAFT this density to the Revised Proposed Project and other PUD’s in the Village. With the Further Reduced Alternative, the number of dwelling units per 5,000 square feet is 0.95, which is within the Comprehensive Plan’s definition of “low density” (defined as up to 1 unit per 5,000 square feet). If AL units, which are not dwelling units, are included in this calculation, there would be 1.49 units per 5,000 square feet. Using the Comprehensive Plan’s measure of density, 1.49 units per 5,000 square feet would be classified as “low- to medium-density,” which is defined as 1 to 2 units per 5,000 square feet. Table M-4 Comparative Project Density Development Dwelling Units per 5,000 sf Dwelling Units per Acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Square feet per Acre Average Unit Size (sf) The Arbors 0.8 6.9 0.37 15,900 2,304 The Atria, Rye Brook 3.9 34.1 1.11 48,352 ukn Doral Green 0.9 7.9 0.54 23,369 2,943 Sun Homes 0.4 3.6 0.28 12,109 3,364 Revised Proposed Project 1.01 (1.55)* 8.8 (13.51)* 0.46 20,032 1,127 (IL) 2,072 (TH) 647 (AL) PUD with Revised Proposed Project 0.77 (0.93)* 6.7 (8.1)* 0.35 15,407 1,895 (1,685)* Further Reduced Alternative 0.95 (1.49)* 8.3 (13.0)* 0.45 19,466 ±1,127 (IL) 2,072 (TH) 647 (AL) PUD with Further Reduced Alternative 0.75 (0.92)* 6.5 (8.0)* 0.35 15,242 ±1,895 (±1,685)* Note: * Includes dwelling units and AL units M.3.3 ZONING With the exception of the zoning controls proposed for the gross floor area per and numbers of dwelling and total units per acre, the Revised Proposed Zoning would remain unchanged with the Further Reduced Alternative (see Table M-5). Similarly, the analysis of the project’s consistency with other provisions of the Village’s zoning ordinance would remain unchanged. As described in the FEIS, the density controls proposed for the Project Site would only apply to “senior living facilities,” as defined by the Village’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the zoning proposed would not permit increased density of “traditional,” non-age-restricted units on the Project Site. Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary DRAFT 5 11/18/2020 Table M-5 Zoning Comparison Zoning Control Current Zoning DEIS Zoning * FEIS Zoning * Further Reduced Alternative * Floor Area / Acre 9,000 sf 26,000 sf * 20,100 sf * 19,466 sf * Dwelling Units / Acre 6 10.4* 8.8* 8.3* AL Units / Acre -- 4.8* 4.8* 4.8* Total Units / Acre -- 15.2* 13.6* 13.0* Notes: * The density controls proposed for the Project Site would only apply to “senior living facilities,” as defined by the Village’s Zoning Ordinance and not to “traditional” residential uses. M.3.4 PUBLIC POLICY The Further Reduced Alternative would not materially change the analysis of the Revised Proposed Project’s consistency with the various public policy documents included in the FEIS. The only changes to the analysis would be in the specific number of dwelling units proposed per acre and per 5,000 square feet, which are referenced in the analysis of the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and the number of affordable housing units proposed. With the Further Reduced Alternative, the number of dwelling units per 5,000 square feet is 0.95, which is within the Comprehensive Plan’s definition of “low density” (defined as up to 1 unit per 5,000 square feet). If AL units, which are not dwelling units, are included in this calculation, there would be 1.49 units per 5,000 square feet. Using the Comprehensive Plan’s measure of density, 1.49 units per 5,000 square feet would be classified as “low- to medium-density,” which is defined as 1 to 2 units per 5,000 square feet. The Further Reduced Alternative would include 14 affordable units, 13 of which would be in the IL building and one of which is proposed to be in the townhouses. M.4. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The Further Reduced Alternative would have the same limit of disturbance (LOD) as the Revised Proposed Project. As such, impacts to geology, soils, and topography would be the same, as would the mitigation measures (i.e., Erosion and Sediment Control Plan). M.5. WATERS AND WETLANDS The Further Reduced Alternative would have the same limit of disturbance (LOD) as the Revised Proposed Project. As such, impacts to wetlands and adjacent areas would be the same, as would the mitigation measures (i.e., wetland mitigation plan). The landbanked parking would create approximately 2,801 sf more impervious surface within 100 feet of a wetland than the Revised Proposed Project. It is noted that of this additional impervious surface, 2,490 sf is currently paved parking lot for the existing office building. During Site Plan design, the Applicant would explore opportunities to use porous pavement or pavers within this area to reduce the increase in impervious coverage. Finally, the area of the landbanked parking within 100 feet of a wetland would also be disturbed from its existing condition with the Revised Proposed Project. That is, no new areas within 100 feet of a wetland would be disturbed as a result of the landbanked parking. Therefore, the landbanked parking alternative’s required wetland mitigation would be the same as that of the Revised Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 11/18/2020 6 DRAFT M.6. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Further Reduced Alternative would result in 6.67 acres of impervious surface on the Project Site (37.5 percent), which is a reduction of 0.09 acres from the Revised Proposed Project and 0.8 acres from the Site’s current condition. The design of the stormwater management system would be substantially the same in this alternative. The landbanked parking would create an additional 6,984 sf of impervious surface on the Project Site as compared to the Revised Proposed Project. The minor increase in stormwater runoff due to the increase in impervious area from the landbank parking will be treated and detained in the existing stormwater pond. Calculations shown in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) for the Revised Proposed Project (Appendix D of the FEIS) indicate that the pond has ample volume to accommodate this minor increase in stormwater runoff. During Site Plan design, the Applicant would explore opportunities to use porous pavement or pavers within this area to reduce the increase in impervious coverage. M.7. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE The Further Reduced Alternative would result in 6.67 acres of impervious surface on the Project Site (37.5 percent), which is a reduction of 0.09 acres from the Revised Proposed Project and 0.8 acres from the current condition. The Further Reduced Alternative would also increase the “lawn” habitat on the Project Site by 0.09 acres from the Revised Proposed Project. The landbanked parking would create an additional 6,984 sf of impervious surface on the Project Site as compared to the Revised Proposed Project. Neither the Further Reduced Alternative or the implementation of the landbanked parking would materially change the analysis of the Revised Proposed Project’s impact to wildlife or threatened and endangered species, as set forth in the FEIS. With the implementation of landbanked parking, slightly fewer trees would be planted in the rear of the IL building than with the Revised Proposed Project. However, the number of trees planted would still be more than required by the Village’s Code to mitigate the impact of the trees removed by the project. M.8. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER The overall visual character of the Further Reduced Alternative would be substantially similar to the Revised Proposed Project; however, the front wings of the IL building would be “shorter” with the Further Reduced Alternative. Specifically, the IL building would be set back 170 feet from Arbor Drive, an increase of 23 feet from the Revised Proposed Project and 54 feet from the original (DEIS) project. Other building setbacks would not be changed. The landbanked parking would not be visible from Arbor Drive. The parking area would be located in the rear of the building in an area that would otherwise be landscaped (see Figure M-2). With respect to building and site coverage, the Further Reduced Alternative would decrease the site and building coverage by approximately 4,000 sf (see Table M-6). The landbanked parking would increase the driveway and site coverage by 6,984 sf. Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary DRAFT 7 11/18/2020 Table M-6 Parcel Coverage Comparison Site Parcel Size (ac) Building Coverage (ac) Roads, Drives, Parking (ac) Total Site Coverage (ac) Percent Building Coverage Percent Other Coverage Percent Total Coverage Existing Condition 17.77 2.17 5.29 7.46 12.22% 29.77% 41.99% Original Project 17.77 3.14 3.91 7.05 17.67% 22.00% 39.67% Revised Proposed Project 17.77 2.93 3.83 6.76 16.49% 21.55% 38.04% Further Reduced Alternative 17.77 2.84 3.83 6.67 15.98% 21.55% 37.54% w/ Landbanked Parking 17.77 2.84 3.99 6.83 15.98% 22.45% 38.44% The Arbors 35.29 5.58 6.26 11.83 15.80% 17.73% 33.53% Arbors (w/o Arbor Dr) 33.49 5.58 5.26 10.83 16.65% 15.70% 32.34% 800 Westchester Ave 44.94 5.46 6.30 11.76 12.15% 14.02% 26.17% Hilton Westchester 35.52 3.80 7.10 10.89 10.69% 19.97% 30.67% Doral Arrowwood Conference Center 105.93 10.67 13.51 24.18 10.07% 12.76% 22.83% Doral (w/o golf) 46.46 10.38 11.89 22.26 22.34% 25.58% 47.92% Sources: Westchester County GIS; JMC Engineering M.9. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS M.9.1 DEMOGRAPHICS The Further Reduced Alternative would be anticipated to have a population of up to 386 people; 20 fewer than the Revised Proposed Project and 76 fewer than the DEIS project. M.9.2 FISCAL CONDITIONS Based on review of project information and coordination with the Applicant, the Town Tax Assessor provided an estimated assessed value for the Revised Proposed Project ($48 million). The Further Reduced Alternative would have ten fewer IL units than the Revised Proposed Project; therefore, the assessed value of this alternative would be less than Revised Proposed Project. However, an estimated assessed value of the Further Reduced Alternative has not been obtained from the Town Assessor. For purposes of this analysis, therefore, it is assumed that the assessed value of this alternative would be reduced in proportion to the reduction in the project’s overall number of units (i.e., 4.15 percent). While the final assessed value of this alternative may be slightly higher or slightly lower than this estimated proportionate value, such minor variation would not materially affect the potential for this alternative to have an adverse environmental impact. Assuming a reduction in assessed value from the Revised Proposed Project proportionate to the reduction in the total number of units, the Further Reduced Alternative is anticipated to have an assessed value of $46,008,000, $1.992 million less than the Revised Proposed Project and $33.008 million more than the current assessed value. As shown in Table M-7, the Further Reduced Alternative would be estimated to generate approximately $1.94 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.40 million more than the Site currently generates and approximately $84,200 less than the taxes anticipated to be 900 King Street Redevelopment 11/18/2020 8 DRAFT generated by the Revised Proposed Project. Of the annual taxes estimated to be generated by the Further Reduced Alternative, approximately $392,479 would go to the Village, which is an increase of $281,580 from the revenue currently generated by the Site and approximately $16,993 less than the Revised Proposed Project. Approximately $1,361,126 would go to the BBRUFSD, representing an increase of $976,527 from the revenue currently generated by the Project Site and approximately $58,932 less than the Revised Proposed Project. Table M-7 Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Revised Proposed Project Jurisdiction 2020/2021 Tax Rate Current Taxes Revised Proposed Project Further Reduced Alternative Projected Taxes Difference from current Projected Taxes Difference from current Village of Rye Brook 8.530673 $110,899 $409,472 $298,574 $392,479 $281,580 BBRUFSD 29.584546 $384,599 $1,420,058 $1,035,459 $1,361,126 $976,527 Westchester County 3.174954 $41,274 $152,398 $111,123 $146,073 $104,799 Town of Rye 0.140742 $1,830 $6,756 $4,926 $6,475 $4,646 Blind Brook Sewer 0.573843 $7,460 $27,544 $20,085 $26,401 $18,941 Solid Waste 0.264324 $3,436 $12,688 $9,251 $12,161 $8,725 Total 42.269082 $549,498 $2,028,916 $1,479,418 $1,944,716 $1,395,218 Sources: Village, Sewer, Solid Waste, Town, County Tax Rates from: https://www.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates; accessed 10/7/2020. School Tax Rates from most recent property tax bill. M.10. COMMUNITY FACILITIES M.10.1 EMERGENCY SERVICES M.10.1.1. EMS—Municipal Contribution to Budget The Further Reduced Alternative would be anticipated to have a population of up to 386 people; 20 fewer than the Revised Proposed Project and 76 fewer than the DEIS project. This decrease in population would not materially change the relative population of the Village as compared to the City of Rye and the Village of Port Chester. Therefore, the Further Reduced Alternative would not be anticipated to change the potential for the Revised Proposed Project to result in an increase in the annual municipal contribution to the EMS service of approximately $1,785. M.10.1.2. EMS—Increase in Call Volume The Further Reduced Alternative would be anticipated to result in an additional 135 EMS calls per year, which represents an approximately 2.2 percent increase in calls system-wide and an increase of approximately 10.8 percent increase in calls within the Village. This is six fewer calls per year than the Revised Proposed Project, which would increase calls system-wide by approximately 2.3 percent and calls within the Village by approximately 11.2 percent. Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary DRAFT 9 11/18/2020 The increase in the number of EMS calls system-wide would likely result in an increase in operational costs to the EMS service. As stated in the FEIS, it is unlikely that a 2.2 percent increase in call volumes would translate into a 2.2 percent increase in costs.2 However, this Appendix includes a conservative analysis of a potential 2.2 percent increase in costs to the EMS service. A 2.2 percent increase in expenses for the EMS service would be approximately $56,257, which is approximately $2,557 less than the Revised Proposed Project. Assuming a 71 percent insurance recovery ratio, this would create an increase in annual expenses of approximately $16,314 per year that would need to be made up through municipal contributions or other sources; approximately $742 less than the Revised Proposed Project. If this increased expense were offset by a corresponding increase in municipal contribution, each of the three municipalities would pay an additional $4,079 per year plus an amount based on their relative population as shown in M-8. Table M-8 Potential Increase in EMS Municipal Contributions 75% of contribution split evenly % of Population (Revised to include Project) 25% of contribution by population Total Contribution Port Chester $4,078.62 53% $2,161.67 $6,240.28 City of Rye $4,078.62 29% $1,182.80 $5,261.42 Rye Brook $4,078.62 18% $734.15 $4,812.77 Total $12,235.85 100% $4,078.62 $16,314.47 Note: Assumes an increase of $12,263 in municipal contributions and assumes a revised relative population percentage inclusive of the population of the Further Reduced Alternative. Even in the most conservative, worst case, with the Further Reduced Alternative the Village could experience an increase of approximately $4,813 per year to support the EMS service, approximately $219 less than the Revised Proposed Project. The Village of Port Chester and City of Rye would also experience increased costs. The costs to the Village would be offset by the increase in property taxes attributable to the Further Reduced Alternative. M.10.1.3. Police Services The Further Reduced Alternative would not result in materially different impacts to the Police Department from those analyzed for the Revised Proposed Project. 2 The marginal cost of an additional EMS call is necessarily less than the average cost per EMS call as the average cost per call includes several fixed costs, such as the ambulance costs and staff salaries. 900 King Street Redevelopment 11/18/2020 10 DRAFT M.10.1.4. Fire Services The Further Reduced Alternative would not result in materially different impacts to fire services from those analyzed for the Revised Proposed Project. M.10.1.5. Emergency Service Site Design The Further Reduced Alternative and the Landbanked Parking would not result in materially different requirements for emergency services site design than those identified for the Revised Proposed Project. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and buildings would be the same with both, or either, of the Further Reduced Alternative and the landbanked parking. M.10.2 SCHOOLS The Further Reduced Alternative would not result in materially different impacts to the school district from those analyzed for the Revised Proposed Project. M.10.3 OPEN SPACE The Further Reduced Alternative would conservatively be anticipated to add a population of 386 people to the Project Site; approximately 20 fewer than the Revised Proposed Project. According to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) standards described in the DEIS, the new population would create a need for approximately 1.25 acres of open space, approximately 0.07 fewer acres than the Revised Proposed Project (see Table M-9). Table M-9 New York State Recommended Available Open Space Facility Type Approx. Size in Acres Acres per 1,000 Population Acres Needed for Incoming Population Pocket Park 0.25–0.5 0.25 0.10 Play Lot 1–2 2 0.77 Neighborhood Park 4–7 1 0.39 Total 1.25 Source: OPRHP, See Appendix F. M.10.4 SOLID WASTE The Further Reduced Alternative could result in the generation of approximately 230.25 tons of solid waste per year, approximately 10.69 tons less than the Revised Proposed Project. M.10.5 SENIOR SERVICES The Further Reduced Alternative would not result in materially different impacts to the Village’s senior service programs from those analyzed for the Revised Proposed Project. M.10.6 COMMUNITY FACILITES FISCAL IMPACT Based on the analysis above, the Further Reduced Alternative would be anticipated to result in approximately $85,063 in annual Village expenditures, which is $219 less than the Revised Proposed Project. Based on a proportionate reduction in the Town Assessor’s estimated assessed value of the Revised Proposed Project, the Further Reduced Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary DRAFT 11 11/18/2020 Alternative is estimated to generate approximately $392,479 per year in Village property taxes, which is an increase of $281,580 from the revenue currently generated by the Site. As such, the Further Reduced Alternative is estimated to result in an annual surplus to the Village of $196,517, which is approximately $16,774 less than the Revised Proposed Project. M.11. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The Further Reduced Alternative is estimated to generate a water/sanitary demand of between 45,470 gallons per day (gpd) and 46,570 gpd (see Table M-10). This is approximately 1,100 to 2,200 fewer gpd than the Revised Proposed Project, between 25,557 and 26,657 gpd more than if the existing office were fully occupied, and between 9,130 and 10,230 gpd less than the original project. Table M-10 Estimated Water/Sanitary Generation Units Quantity Gallons per Day per Unit Total Gallons per Day Townhouses (Full kitchen) Bedrooms 40 110 4,400 Assisted Living (No in-unit kitchen) Bedrooms 95 110 10,450 Kitchen/Lounge/ Employees 110 Seats/20 Seats/ 64 Employees 50/20/15 6,860 Independent Living (Full kitchen) Bedrooms 216 to 226 110 23,760 to 24,860 Total 45,470 to 46,570 Note: Independent Living units are not part of the Assisted Living Facility and for purposes of this analysis are treated as standard apartments. Source: NYS Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, NYSDEC, March 5, 2014. The reduction in the potential water/sanitary demand associated with the Further Reduced Alternative would not change the potential impacts to, and mitigation for, the water and sanitary infrastructure system identified for the Revised Proposed Project. The reduction in the amount of sanitary flow would reduce the required inflow and infiltration mitigation by 3,300 gpd to 6,600 gpd. As with the Revised Proposed Project, with the Further Reduced Alternative the Applicant would meet its obligation through a monetary contribution to the Village’s I&I program, project-based mitigation, or a combination of both. As the Further Reduced Alternative would reduce the size of the proposed IL building from the Revised Proposed Project, the energy required for this alternative’s building would also decrease. Therefore, as was the case with the Revised Proposed Project, Con Edison would have adequate capacity to serve the Further Reduced Alternative with electricity and natural gas. It is anticipated that the mitigation measures required by Con Edison with respect to the natural gas system for the Revised Proposed Project would still be required of the Further Reduced Alternative. 900 King Street Redevelopment 11/18/2020 12 DRAFT M.12. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION M.12.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION The Further Reduced Alternative would reduce the number of peak hour trips from what was estimated for the Revised Proposed Project (see Attachment A from Maser Consulting P.C.). As summarized in Table M-11, the Further Reduced Alternative would result in two fewer vehicular trips in the Weekday Peak AM and PM Hours. The reduction in peak hour trips associated with this alternative would not change the conclusion of the FEIS that “redevelopment of the Project Site to an age-restricted residential community would not significantly affect the area roadways.” Similarly, the analysis of the potential signal retimings, pedestrian circulation, and roadway safety would not be materially altered by the reduction in peak hour trips. Table M-11 Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic Original Project (DEIS) pFEIS Project Revised Proposed Project Further Reduced Alternative Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Entry Exit Total Weekday Peak AM Hour 25 45 70 20 34 54 19 32 51 18 31 49 Weekday Peak Midday Hour1 38 42 80 29 33 62 28 31 59 27 29 56 Weekday Peak PM Hour 50 40 90 39 32 71 36 31 67 35 30 65 Note: 1 Average of weekday AM and weekday PM peak hour trip generation rates. Sources: Maser Consulting P.A.; Townhouse Rates—ITE Land Use 230 – Residential Townhouse Rates with 25% reduction for age-restriction; IL Rates—ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Adult Housing Rates; AL Rates—ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living Rates M.12.2 PARKING As described in Section M.2.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the Further Reduced Alternative would provide 228 parking spaces, which is ten fewer than the Revised Proposed Project and 74 fewer spaces than the original project. The number of parking spaces provided is slightly in excess of the amount required by the Revised Proposed Zoning, the current PUD zoning, and the ITE guidelines (see Table M-12). Table M-12 Comparison of Parking Spaces for the Further Reduced Alternative Use Current PUD Zoning Revised Proposed Zoning ITE Guideline Revised Proposed Project Independent Living (126 units) 0.75 per unit (94) 1 per unit (126) 0.67 per unit (84) 126 Assisted Living (85 units/94 beds) 0.75 per unit (64) 0.5 per unit (43) 0.58 per bed (55) 52 Townhouse (20 units) 0.75 per unit (15) 2.5 per unit (50) 1.52 per unit (31) 50 Total 173 219 177 228 Source: Based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition, January 2019. Values are for 85th percentile. ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Attached Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living, ITE Land Use 220 – Low Rise Multifamily Appendix M: Ten Unit Reduction Impact Summary DRAFT 13 11/18/2020 In response to comments from the Lead Agency, the Applicant has identified areas of the Project Site that could be used for landbanked parking (see Figure M-2). As described in Section M.2.3, “Parking and Circulation,” the landbanked parking areas would be engineered and approved as part of an eventual site plan approval for the project, but would not be constructed with the rest of the project. Rather, upon project stabilization, the Applicant would monitor the utilization of the on-Site parking and determine, in consultation with the Village, whether additional spaces are required to meet the actual demand. If it is determined that additional spaces are required, the Applicant would be required to construct some or all of the landbanked parking. M.13. AIR QUALITY The Further Reduced Alternative’s de minimis reduction in vehicular traffic, underground parking, and building space to be heated and cooled would not materially change the analysis of the potential air quality impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project. As with the Revised Proposed Project, the Further Reduced Alternative would not result in a significant adverse air quality impact. M.14. NOISE The Further Reduced Alternative’s de minimis reduction in vehicular traffic, underground parking, and building space to be heated and cooled would not materially change the analysis of the potential noise impacts associated with the Revised Proposed Project. As with the Revised Proposed Project, the Further Reduced Alternative would not result in a significant adverse noise impact. M.15. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The Further Reduced Alternative, as was the case with the Revised Proposed Project, would require demolition of the existing office building and parking lot, as well as subsurface excavation. Therefore, the potential impacts of this alternative on hazardous materials and the mitigation measures included as part of this alternative with respect to hazardous materials, would be the same as those for the Revised Proposed Project. M.16. CONSTRUCTION Construction of the Further Reduced Alternative would be substantially similar to the Revised Proposed Project. Therefore, the potential impacts of this alternative related to construction and the mitigation measures included as part of this alternative with respect to construction would be the same as those for the Revised Proposed Project.  11.13.20Figure M-1900 KING STREET Further Reduced AlternativeSource: MPFPArea of building removed 11.13.20 ARCHITECT: APPLICANT/OWNER: Drawing No: Project No:Date:Scale:Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2.No.RevisionDateByCOPYRIGHT © 2017 by JMC All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of JMC PLANNING, ENGINEERING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & LAND SURVEYING, PLLC | JMC SITE DEVELOPMENTCONSULTANTS, LLC | JOHN MEYER CONSULTING, INC. (JMC). Any modifications or alterations to this document without the written permission of JMC shall render them invalid and unusable.Source: JMCFigure M-2900 KING STREET Landbank Parking 100 FEET0Landbank Parking Area of Location Traffic Impact Study 900 King Street MC Project No.: 17000360A Attachment 900 KING STREET _______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT A TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON “FURTHER REDUCED” DEVELOPMENT PLAN ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Office - 200,000 s.f. WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 293 40 333 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR 102 125 227 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 51 251 302 ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Residential Townhouse - 24 units Senior Adult Housing - 160 units Assisted living - 85 units (94 beds) WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 25 45 70 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR 38 42 80 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 50 40 90 VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Residential Townhouse - 20 units Senior Adult Housing - 152 units Assisted living - 85 units (94 beds) WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 20 34 54 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR 29 33 62 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 39 32 71 VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Residential Townhouse - 20 units Senior Adult Housing - 136 units Assisted living - 85 units (94 beds) WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 19 32 51 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR 28 31 59 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 36 31 67 VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME Residential Townhouse - 20 units Senior Adult Housing - 126 units Assisted living - 85 units (94 beds) WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 18 31 49 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR 27 29 56 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 35 30 65 AS-OF-RIGHT (TIS - AUGUST 24, 2018) "FURTHER REDUCED" DEVELOPMENT PLAN FEIS REDUCED DEVELOPMENT PLAN pFEIS REDUCED DEVELOPMENT PLAN TABLE A HOURLY TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ANTICIPATED SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 900 KING STREET PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AGE RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY (TIS - AUGUST 24, 2018) MC 17000360A NOVEMBER 16, 2020 HTGR VOLUME HTGR VOLUME HTGR VOLUME Residential Townhouse - 20 units (1) WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 0.090 2 0.442 9 0.532 11 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR (2)0.248 5 0.318 6 0.566 11 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 0.400 8 0.200 4 0.600 12 Senior Adult Housing - 126 units WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 0.068 8 0.132 17 0.200 25 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR (2)0.1015 13 0.1235 15 0.225 28 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 0.135 17 0.115 15 0.250 32 Assisted living - 85 units (94 beds) WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR 0.090 8 0.050 5 0.140 13 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR (2)0.095 9 0.085 8 0.180 17 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR 0.100 10 0.120 11 0.220 21 TOTALS WEEKDAY PEAK AM HOUR -----18 -----31 -----49 WEEKDAY PEAK MIDDAY HOUR (2)-----27 -----29 -----56 WEEKDAY PEAK PM HOUR -----35 -----30 -----65 (2) – Average of Weekday AM and Weekday PM Peak Hour Hourly Trip Generation Rates HOURLY TRIP GENERATION RATES AND ANTICIPATED SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES 900 KING STREET "FURTHER REDUCED" DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGE RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ENTRY EXIT TOTAL Based on ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition, 2012 ITE Land Use 230 – Residential Townhouse, ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Adult Housing, ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living (1) –With 25% Reduction for Age Restriction (62+) MC 17000360A NOVEMBER 16, 2020