HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street Hardesty & Hanover Memorandum 2021-4-2 555 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite C-301 Rye, NY 10580
T: 914.967.6540
www.hardestyhanover.com
MEMORANDUM
To: Robert I. Goodman, Chairman, and the
Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook
Date: April 2, 2021
Subject: 900 King Street Redevelopment - Application for Approval of Wetlands and Steep
Slopes Permits and Site Plan Referral
As requested, we have reviewed applications, correspondence and plans submitted by 900 King Street Owner
LLC for approval of a Site Plan, Wetlands and Steep Slopes Permit for the project which proposes to demolish
the existing office building on the property and construct 231 units of age-targeted housing and other related
infrastructure, including driveways, walkways, garage and surface parking, site lighting, signage and
stormwater management on the property known as 900 King Street, Town of Rye Tax Map Parcel 129.68-1-
13.
Property Description
The 17.77-acre subject property is located within the PUD district situated on the west side of King Street
south of the Hutchinson River Parkway that includes The Arbors residential development and Harkness Park.
It is developed with a 193,975 square-foot office building and surface parking area. The subject lot is adjacent
to and west of Village Hall and the Village Firehouse, adjacent to and south of the Hutchinson River Parkway,
adjacent to and east of The Arbors, and adjacent to and north of Harkness Park and the Blind Brook High
School property. It is within the King Street Scenic Road Overlay District (SROD).
Although the lot has 164.78 feet of frontage along King Street, it does not have direct vehicular access from
King Street. Vehicular access to the lot is provided at two locations along the north side of Arbor Drive, which
is currently the only access to and from King Street for the commercial and residential portions of the PUD.
Review
We have reviewed application materials and plans that include the following items:
1. Application for Site Plan Approval;
2. Site Plan Submittal Review Checklist;
3. Exterior Building Permit Application;
4. Construction Management Plan, dated 2/18/21;
5. The following engineering plans generally entitled, “900 King Street Redevelopment” prepared by JMC
Civil Engineering and Land Surveyor, last revised 3/25/21:
a. Sheet C-000, “Cover Sheet,”
b. Sheet C-010, “Notes & Legends,”
c. Sheet C-100, “Existing Conditions,”
d. Sheet C-120, “Existing Steep Slopes Map,”
e. Sheet C-130, Tree Removal/Protection Plan,”
f. Sheet C-131, “Tree Removal/ Protection Chart,”
g. Sheet C-200, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Construction Phase 1),”
h. Sheet C-201, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Construction Phase 2),”
i. Sheet C-202, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Construction Phase 3&4),”
j. Sheet C-203, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Construction Phase 5),”
k. Sheet C-204, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Construction Phase 6),”
l. Sheet C-205, “Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (Construction Phase 7),”
m. Sheet C-300, “Layout and Striping Plan,”
n. Sheet C-310, “Road Profiles,”
o. Sheet C-311, “Road Profiles,”
p. Sheet C-320, “Fire Truck, Emergency Vehicle & Truck Turning Plan,”
q. Sheet C-321, “On-Site Fire Protection Plan,”
r. Sheet C-400, “Grading Plan,”
s. Sheet C-410, “Excavation Cross Section,”
t. Sheet C-500, “Utilities Plan,”
u. Sheet C-510, “Storm Sewer Profiles,”
v. Sheet C-520, “Sanitary Sewer Profiles,”
w. Sheet C-600, “Lighting Plan,”
x. Sheet C-900 – Sheet C908, “Construction Details,”
y. Sheet L-300, “Planting Plan,”
z. Sheet L-301, “Planting Details;”
6. The following architectural plans generally entitled, “900 King Street” prepared Perkins Eastman,
dated 2/18/21:
a. Sheet ZAS-100, “Architectural Site Plan,”
b. Sheet ZA-100, “Parking Plan,”
c. Sheet ZA-101, “First Floor Plan,”
d. Sheet ZA-102, “Second Floor Plan,”
e. Sheet ZA-103, “Third Floor Plan,”
f. Sheet ZA-104, “Fourth Floor Plan,”
g. Sheet ZA-105, “Roof Plan,”
h. Sheet ZA-111, Townhouse Plans,”
i. Sheet ZA-200, “Overall Elevations,”
j. Sheet ZA-201, “Overall Elevations,”
k. Sheet ZA-202, “Elevations,”
l. Sheet ZA-203, “Elevations,”
m. Sheet ZA-204, “Elevations,”
n. Sheet ZA-205, “Elevations,”
o. Sheet ZA-211, “Townhouse Elevations,”
p. Sheet ZA-301, “Sections.”
Please note that our review is limited to planning and environmental issues. We offer the following comments
regarding the application and will provide further comments with future submissions of the plans:
1. SEQRA. On January 26, 2021, the Board of Trustees, the Lead Agency, adopted a SEQRA Finding
Statement for the Proposed Action.
2. Land Use and Zoning.
a. In the Finding Statement, the Lead Agency found that the proposal does have an adequate
PUD buffer as the proposed development complies with the yard requirements of the Revised
Zoning and those yard requirements provided an adequate buffer from the existing residences
at The Arbors, particularly given the existing dense vegetation within the buffer that is proposed
to remain, as well as adequate setbacks from other adjacent and nearby uses such as the
Hutchinson River Parkway, Blind Brook School and Village Hall, as long as sufficient
landscaping are incorporated into the final site plan design. Based upon our review of the
proposed Landscaping Plan, the buffer will be vegetated adequately.
b. In the event that the Village Board determines that adequate recreational facilities cannot be
located on the Project Site, a condition shall be incorporated as a condition of final site plan
approval for the payment of a fee in lieu. If the Planning Board has any comments regarding
the adequacy of the recreation facilities, it should be included in the Board’s review and
recommendation.
c. To ensure the continued enforcement of the age restriction, the Village Board will consider a
requirement as a condition of site plan approval a restrictive covenant to be recorded against
the property limiting use of the property to a senior living facility with an age restriction of 62
years of age or older. If the Planning Board has any comments regarding the restrictive
covenant, it should be included in the Board’s review and recommendation.
d. To maintain the integrated nature of the Proposed Project as a senior living facility, the Village
Board will consider a requirement as a condition of site plan approval for a restrictive covenant
to be recorded against the property to limit the AL, IL and townhouse units to rental-only. If the
Planning Board has any comments regarding the a restrictive covenant, it should be included
in the Board’s review and recommendation.
3. Steep Slopes Permit. Construction of the proposed project will require disturbance of existing steep
slopes and will result in the creation of new steep slopes on the property. Approval of a steep slopes
work permit will require compliance of all grading and filling with the requirements of Chapter 213 of
the Village Code. New areas of steep slopes to be created are most notably in the areas around the
access ramps to the underground parking area. These areas of steep slope are necessary to allow for
the grading plan that accommodates the underground parking, the need for a relatively flat pedestrian
area around the buildings, and the need to meet the existing grades on Arbor Drive at the driveway
connections.
4. Wetlands Permit. The total amount of disturbance proposed within 100-ft. regulated wetland buffer is
2.25 acres. The proposed disturbance of the buffer will require approval of a wetlands permit in
accordance with Chapter 245, Wetlands, of the Village Code and mitigation for disturbance of the buffer
at a ratio of 2:1 (mitigation: total area of disturbance). There are 4.5 acres of wetland buffer mitigation
proposed. The Applicant has identified 2.4 acres of on-site buffer mitigation and 2.1 acres of mitigation
off-site in areas to be identified by the Village’s Superintendent of Public Works and approved by the
Planning Board.
a. The location of the off-Site mitigation will need to be identified and a proposed planting plan
for the off-Site location will need to be included in the plan set.
b. We have reviewed the wetland buffer plantings and we have confirmed that all plantings within
the wetland buffer are native species. Wetland buffer planting zones and their preservation in
a wooded, unmowed condition must be included in the restrictions provided on the final Site
Plan drawings.
c. As noted in the Findings Statement, the wetland buffer mitigation plan should include the planting
of wetland facultative tree species in the wetland buffer. We note that only herbaceous plantings
have been provided within the limits of the wetland buffer.
5. Tree Preservation and Removal. The Applicant has provided a tree inventory of the proposed trees to
be removed on the property regulated by Chapter 235, Trees, of the Village Code. The inventory notes
that 69 trees ranging in DBH from 10 inches to 24 inches would be removed, 6 trees ranging in DBH from
25 inches to 36 inches would be removed, and 2 trees 37 inches to 48 inches would be removed. Based
on Chapter 235 of the Village Code, the removal would require the replanting of 87 trees. The Applicant
has proposed to plant 438 trees on the site.
6. Landscaping.
a. A condition of the adopted Finding Statement required the planting of no fewer than 438 new
tress and 309 new shrubs. Based on the planting schedule provided on the Planting Plan, the
required number of planting has been provided.
b. The Findings Statement noted that the landscaping plan should provide replacement trees with
a preference toward locating such trees in a manner that provides visual screening from Arbor
Drive, the Arbors and the surrounding area.
c. We question why the proposed Pin Oak plantings are noted as 15-gallon rather than by caliper
size. The Planting Schedule should be revised to note the caliper size of the proposed Pin
Oak.
d. As part of any site plan approval, there shall be a 5-year maintenance guaranty for the tree
and landscape plantings. The plantings will be required to be monitored and maintained for
five years by a horticultural consultant and replaces as necessary during this monitoring period.
7. Visual Resources and Community Character. The weighted average roof height (i.e. the height
measured for zoning compliance) is proposed to be 42.06 feet, and the highest peak of the rood at the
center of the proposed IL building is proposed to be 61.10 feet. The final roof design shall be reviewed
to ensure that the overall composition and proportions of the building, including the roof elements
result in a visually-pleasing building.
8. Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts. As required by the Findings Statement, the Village Board shall
consider as a condition of site plan approval a requirement that the Applicant record a covenant
against the property restricting ownership of the senior living facility to a for-profit entity to ensure the
integrity of the fiscal impact analysis performed during the SEQRA review. If the Planning Board has
any comments regarding the covenant, it should be included in the Board’s review and
recommendation.
9. Community Facilities. A second means of access to the Project Site for use in emergencies where
the two entrances to the Project Site from Arbor Drive are not otherwise available has been provided
in the northeastern portion of the Site and connects to the northern terminus of the existing parking lot
behind the Village’s firehouse. It will be the Applicant’s responsibility to maintain this drive, including
the portion on Village property. An Access Easement over Village property will be necessary which
shall be in provided for review by the Village Attorney.
10. Traffic, Transportation and Parking.
a. The Project is providing parking in an amount that is slightly in excess of the amount required
by zoning. In addition to the proposed parking, the Applicant has included 25 “landbanked”
parking spaces. The Owner would be required to conduct parking utilization counts when the
Project is 75% occupied and 90% occupied. Upon reaching 90% occupancy, the utilization
counts will be conducted annually for three years. The parking utilization will be provided to
the Village and the Village will determine the actual parking demand and the need for the
construction of all or a portion of the “landbanked” parking. We have reviewed this method of
evaluating the need for the “landbanked” parking and find it acceptable. The proposed location
of the “landbank” parking is also acceptable.
b. Sight distance calculations should be provided at the driveway connections to Arbor Drive to
ensure that sight lines are not impeded by any existing or proposed landscaping.
11. Construction Management Plan.
a. The Construction Management Plan (CMP) will need to be revised to provide all necessary
information on the “Primary Contacts” page and to include Section 5 “Materials Management
Plan.”
b. The limit of disturbance provided on Sheet C-110 does not match the limit of disturbance on
Sheet C-130. More specifically, Tree #39 and Tree #139 may be impacted more that
anticipated. The locations of the trees should be reviewed and the limit of disturbance revised
accordingly. If the trees will be removed, they should be added to the removal list and the tree
replacement calculation will need to be revised. In addition, the trees noted to be removed on
the “Phase 1 Demolition Plan” included in the CMP do not match the trees to be removed on
Sheet C-110 and Sheet C-130.
c. Once the acoustical analysis has been completed, Section 10.1 “Physical Noise Mitigation” will
need to be revised to include information regarding all required noise barriers.
12. Site Plan.
a. A note should be provided on the Site Plan that solid waste and recycling shall not be picked
up earlier than 6 AM. The Applicant has noted that a solid waste management plan that
complies with the requirements of the Westchester County Source Separation Law will be
developed and the plan will be submitted to the Westchester County Commissioner of
Environmental Facilities as well as the Village for review.
The Finding Statement also required an evaluation of the Project Site serving as a second
pick-up location for food-scrap recycling. The Applicant has noted that, given the community’s
concern over traffic, the Applicant does not wish to introduce policies or procedures that could
generate additional traffic.
b. The specifications noted on the detail of the proposed light fixtures provided on Sheet C-909
do not match the specifications noted in the Luminaire Schedule on Sheet C-600. The detail
should also note the pole height, the Backlight, Uplight, Glare (BUG) rating of the proposed
fixtures. It appears that the proposed fixtures would have a color temperature of 4000K. The
fixtures should be revised to have a color temperature of 3000K or less.
c. The specifications of the proposed generator and a detail of the sound attenuated/weather
protective enclosure should be provided in the plan set.
We look forward to discussion with the Board.
Sarah L. Brown, AICP
Senior Planner
cc: Honorable Mayor and the Village Board of Trustees
Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator
Michal Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works/Village Engineer
Jennifer L. Gray, Esq., Village Attorney
Peter Feroe, AICP, for the Applicant
Y:\Shared\Offices\NYR\Data\Documents\DOCS2\500\RyeBrook\4133.02 900 King Street PB Site Plan, Wetlands, Steep Slopes Review pme2.docx