Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout900 King Street AKRF Memorandum 2021-7-2 Environmental, Planning, and Engineering Consultants 34 South Broadway Suite 300 White Plains, NY 10601 tel: 914 949-7336 fax: 914 949-7559 www.akrf.com Offices in New York ● New Jersey ● Pennsylvania ● Maryland ● Connecticut Memorandum To: Mayor Paul Rosenberg and Rye Brook Village Board of Trustees From: AKRF, Inc. (Peter Feroe, AICP) Date: July 2, 2021 Re: 900 King Street: Site Plan Process Summary On January 26, 2021, the Village Board adopted an Environmental Findings Statement (“EFS”) with respect to the 900 King Street project, thus concluding the SEQRA review under State law. On the same day, the Village Board adopted updates to the Village Zoning Code as well as adopted the PRD Concept Plan for the Project Site. Together, the Zoning and Concept Plan provide for the programmatic, bulk, area, and major site plan elements of the Proposed Project. These elements were the result of 3-½ years of dialogue and negotiation with the Village Board, informed by comments from the Planning Board and members of the public. The materials in this submission are the result not only of our work with your Board, but also of an additional 4-½ months of work with your Planning Board and Architectural Review Board to refine the Site Plan now before you. Enclosed herein are the following materials: A. “Cover Letter;” prepared by Veneziano & Associates, 7/2/2021 B. “Site Plan Process Summary Memorandum,” prepared by AKRF, Inc., 7/2/2021 C. “Site Plan Application Contents;” Revised 7/2/2021 This table lists the documents, materials, and analyses required to be included in the Final Site Plan for the 900 King Street Project and is updated for each submission. D. “Site Plan Application Form,” last revised 2/18/2021 E. “Exterior Building Permit Application Form,” last revised 2/18/2021 F. List of Drawings, last revised 7/2/2021 G. Engineering Site Plans; prepared by JMC, last revised 7/2/2021 H. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan (ESCP); prepared by JMC, last revised 2/18/2021 I. Landscape & Wetland Buffer Planting Plans; prepared by MPFP, last revised 7/2/2021 Mayor Rosenberg & Board of Trustees 2 July 2, 2021 J. Architectural Plans; prepared by Perkins Eastman, last revised 7/2/2021 K. “Project Description.” prepared by AKRF; last revised 7/2/2021 L. “Construction Management Plan.” compiled by AKRF; last revised 7/2/2021 M. “Weighted Average Summary,” prepared by Perkins Eastman; last revised 7/2/2021 N. “Will Serve Letter,” Prepared by SUEZ, dated May 21, 2021 Planning Board Review In order to refine certain project elements, the Board of Trustees, upon adoption of the PRD Concept Plan, referred the Site Plan to the Planning Board for a Report & Recommendation. On February 18, 2021, the Applicant submitted a site plan application and supporting materials to the Planning Board for their consideration.1 Based on comments received from the Planning Board over four meetings, as well as written comments by the Village’s consultants, the Site Plans were updated, and additional technical analyses prepared and submitted. The updated plans and analyses were reviewed by, and subject to comment by, the Planning Board and Village Consultants. On June 24, 2021, the Planning Board adopted a Report & Recommendation to the Board of Trustees, which concluded that “Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board recommends approval of the proposed applications, subject to due consideration of the comments set forth herein.” To guide the Planning Board in its review, the Board of Trustees noted in the EFS several items that should be reviewed during the Site Plan process. These items, listed below, were specifically reviewed by the Planning Board and the Village’s Consultants and were the subject of the Planning Board’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). 1. Landscaping – General & Views from Arbors and Arbor Drive a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.5 and §II.8; Landscape Drawings L-300, L-304 b. Planning Board Discussion and Finding: i. Landscape Plan and Tree Plan are acceptable. ii. The Landscaping plan includes all proposed replacement trees and locates them in a manner that provides maximum visual screening from Arbor Drive, the Arbors, and the surrounding area. iii. The existing vegetation to remain will significantly screen the proposed building [from the Arbors] even without any further plantings. The landscape plan proposes a further layer of trees between the existing vegetative buffer and the proposed townhomes which is sufficient to address errant views from the Arbors. iv. The retaining wall proposed at the entrance to the underground garage at the front of the Site does not appear to be visible from Arbor Drive. The Applicant proposes a textured, finished block retaining wall face, which is aesthetically pleasing and acceptable to the Planning Board. 2. Landscaping – Wetland Buffer Planting Plan a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.5; L-301, -302, -303 b. Planning Board Discussion and Finding: i. The Project includes 2.25 acres of wetland buffer disturbance with only 0.173 acres (7,436 sf) of such disturbance consisting of additional impervious coverage in the wetland buffer area. 1 This submission, along with subsequent submissions to the Planning Board, were also provided to the Board of Trustees as Site Plan Approval Authority. Mayor Rosenberg & Board of Trustees 3 July 2, 2021 ii. 4.5 acres of wetland buffer mitigation is proposed. 1. 2.3 acres is proposed on-Site. 2. 2.2 acres is proposed in Rich Manor Park. 3. Steep Slopes a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.6; C-120; C-400 b. Planning Board Discussion and Finding: i. The Project requires the creation of steep slopes, most notably in the areas around the access ramps to the underground parking area. ii. These steep slopes are proposed to allow the grading plan to accommodate the underground parking area along with a relatively flat pedestrian area around the buildings. iii. The methods of stabilizing the steep slopes are acceptable pursuant to Chapter 213 of the Village Code. 4. Lighting a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.6; C-600, Photometric Plan; C-909 for details b. Planning Board Discussion and Finding: i. The lighting plan is acceptable in that there is no light spillage. ii. The Planning Board did not have an opinion on the design of the light fixtures proposed. 5. Roofscape of Center Section of IL Building a. Discussed in separate section below. 6. Landbank Parking a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.1; Drawing C-300; Project Description §2.5.3 b. Planning Board Discussion and Finding: i. Design and location of land banked parking area is acceptable. ii. A Land Banked Parking Agreement shall be submitted guaranteeing the improvement of the land banked spaces in the event they are determined necessary. iii. Parking utilization surveys shall be conducted post-construction in the manner set forth in the Board’s Report & Recommendation and summarized in the Applicant’s “Project Description.” 7. Open & Recreational Space a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.11; Project Description §5 b. Planning Board Discussion and Finding: i. The programmed outdoor recreational and park amenities included in the Proposed Project satisfy a portion of that space required by Village and State law. ii. This programmed space should serve as a “credit” toward the total fee in lieu otherwise required. 8. Circulation a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.1; C-300, -320, 321 b. Planning Board Discussion and Findings: i. Emergency access design is acceptable. ii. Pick-up and drop-off locations are acceptable. iii. Site distance at driveways is acceptable. iv. Formal marking of existing crosswalk on Arbor Drive should be installed. Mayor Rosenberg & Board of Trustees 4 July 2, 2021 9. Stormwater a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.3; SWPPP b. Planning Board Discussion & Findings: i. The Proposed Project reduces the impervious area on the Project Site, which is a benefit. ii. The addition of the proposed stormwater system would be a benefit to the Site, which does not currently include any stormwater practices with infiltration. 10. Utilities a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.4; C-500, -510, -520; Project Description §6; Suez Letter dated 5/21/21 b. Planning Board Discussion & Findings i. An updated will serve letter from Suez and ConEd should be provided. (Note: Updated letter from Suez is provided. Updated letter from ConEd will be submitted to Village, as required.) ii. Project-based inflow and infiltration mitigation is preferred to a payment-in-lieu. 11. Construction a. See Materials: PB R&R §II.9; Construction Management Plan b. Planning Board Discussion & Findings: i. Each phase of construction shall be stabilized in conformance with approved plans. (Note: This is a State- and Village-enforced requirement that will be met by the Applicant.) ii. Pile driving and jack hammering should be prohibited absent further Building Department review. (Note: This is included in the most recent draft of the CMP, though these techniques are not proposed to be utilized.) iii. Recent baseline noise conditions should be obtained. (Note: The Applicant concurs and has added this requirement to the most recent draft of the CMP.) iv. Construction trucks should not be permitted to idle at all, rather than have a three-minute limit as discussed in the EFS. (While the Applicant supports this goal, it will be extremely difficult to implement without a durational limit, such as the three-minute limit established in County Law, as “stopping” a vehicle could be considered idling.) v. Construction Noise Barrier. The Planning Board agrees with the Applicant’s proposal to supplement the 12-foot-high plywood barrier on the Arbor Drive side of the Site with a 6- foot-high plywood wall on the Arbors and Village Hall sides of the Site. This proposal is based on the conclusion of an acoustical analysis, concurred with by the Village’s Special Engineering Consultant, that construction of even a 12-foot-high plywood wall on the Arbors and Village Hall sides of the Site would not appreciably reduce the levels of noise experienced by the Arbors of Village Hall during construction as compared to a condition without a noise barrier. vi. Aesthetics of Construction Noise Barrier. The Planning Board recommends that no artwork, including banners, be installed on the construction noise barrier. vii. The Planning Board recommended certain other construction-period policies, which the Applicant notes are included in the submitted CMP. These include the requirement for a health and safety plan and a two-week “look ahead” schedule communicated to the Village, the Arbors, and the School District. Certain other items were referenced in the EFS as needing to be advanced during site plan review but were not the subject of a Planning Board recommendation. These included EMS policies (discussed in more detail in Project Description, §3.4), the proposed HVAC systems (discussed in more detail in Project Description, §7), and various potential covenants that the Board of Trustees desired to consider at the time of Site Plan Approval. Mayor Rosenberg & Board of Trustees 5 July 2, 2021 Roofscape of the Center Section of the IL Building In adopting the EFS, the BoT both expressed their own concern, and reflected the concern of certain members of the public, with respect to the absolute height of the roof element in the center of the IL- building; the element over the main entrance to the IL-building. While nearly 300 feet away from Arbor Drive, there was concern that this roof element may be too high and that there may be opportunities to reduce the height of this element without changing the overall design of the project. Specifically, the EFS stated that, “The final design of the IL/AL building’s roofscape, including the maximum height of various roof elements, shall be reviewed during Site Plan review to ensure that a building that otherwise meets the requirements of the zoning does not include elements that adversely affect the intended “low-scale” character of the Site’s zoning requirements. Similarly, 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. Opportunities to further reduce the height of the IL building and its peak will be explored during site plan review and balanced against the architectural integrity of the proposed design.” (Findings at Section F.3.f) In order to assist with this evaluation, the Board of Trustees requested that the Village’s Architectural Review Board review the overall architectural design of the project, with a focus on the final roof design of the project “To ensure that the overall composition and proportions of the building, including the roof elements, will result in a visually-pleasing building; opportunities to reduce the height of the Independent Living Building shall be reviewed and balanced against the architectural integrity of the proposed design.” (BoT Resolution seeking ARB report and recommendation) BoT’s Previous Findings with Respect to Height and Character of Buildings Coincident with its approval of the PUD Concept Plan, the BoT approved an amendment to the zoning code that, among other things, permitted Senior Living Facilities on the Project Site to be a maximum of four- stories or 45 feet. (Within the PUD zoning district, senior living facilities have their height calculated as a weighted average of the building from average finished grade.) This increase in allowable height for Senior Living Facilities was specifically recommended in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. In fact, in discussing its decision to permit increased height for Senior Living Facilities in the EFS, the BoT noted that, “With respect to the height of the buildings proposed, the Lead Agency finds that the [Project] is consistent with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and with many buildings within the Village that are at least four stories in height, specifically The Atria, Rye Brook (a three- and four-story IL building with 168 units on 4.92 acres) and the Hilton Westchester.” (Section F.3.f of the Findings Statement) The EFS also noted that, with respect to developing a Senior Living Facility under the Site’s prior zoning, which limited height to 35 feet, such development would be “inconsistent with the [Comprehensive] Plan’s goal of allowing increased height for senior living facilities.”Finally, the EFS noted that the Independent Living building had been lowered in height from the project first proposed to the Village several years ago and set back further from both Arbor Drive and the Arbors townhouses. Together with several other design changes to the buildings, the BoT noted in the EFS that the project “would be consistent with the principles of good site design” (Findings at Section F.3.a). The Findings went on to say that, “the design and placement of the buildings and parking would create a more human-scale development than currently exists and is consistent with the desired architectural character of the Village.” Mayor Rosenberg & Board of Trustees 6 July 2, 2021 Applicant’s Response to EFS Original Design It is important to note that the zoning height of the IL/AL building (as defined by the PUD zoning and applied throughout the review of this project) was and is zoning compliant. The Site Plan application submitted to the Planning Board and BoT following approval of the PUD Concept Plan demonstrated that the zoning height of the IL/AL building was 42.06 feet, which is below the maximum permitted zoning height of 45 feet. The zoning height of the building was determined, as required, using the weighted average of various roof elements along the exterior of the building. As shown on the architectural plans, the IL/AL buildings vary in height (e.g., three- and four-story) and different elements of the building have different roof treatments and heights. As noted above, the main concern of the BoT and certain neighbors is with respect to the roof element of the four-story portion of the IL building directly above the IL’s main entrance. This roof element, which consisted of a sloping mansard roof with gable element and dormers, reached an absolute height at its ridge, or “peak,” of 61.1 feet above average finished grade2 (the midpoint of this roof element, which is how the zoning height of a pitched roof is calculated, was 51-feet 2-inches above finished grade). Interim Revision (Five Foot Reductions) In order to address the BoT’s concern, the Applicant illustrated two alternatives that would reduce the absolute height of this center roof element by approximately five feet and presented them to the Planning Board during its review of the Site Plan. Some Planning Board members liked the original design the best, while others expressed an opinion favoring one of the alternatives. The consensus of the Planning Board was that, without a specific metric or architectural expertise, it was difficult for them to objectively make a recommendation to the BoT. Following the Planning Board meeting, the Applicant presented the alternatives to two members of the ARB in an informal, non-binding, preliminary and informational meeting. The two ARB members expressed several opinions about the alternatives, as well as the overall design of the IL/AL building. The opinions can generally be summarized as follows:  The overall design and character of the IL/AL building should be reflective of its size and its relative prominence in terms of the building stock within the Village.  Any design that sought to lower the height of the one element of the building would need to be accompanied by changes to other elements of the roof.  The flat roof on the 3- and 4-story AL portion of the building did not seem in keeping with the character of the rest of the building or befitting of the more “grand” nature of the building.  Certain other building elements needed to be made consistent throughout the drawings. Revised Plans Given the totality of the comments received from the BoT, Planning Board, and two members of the ARB, the Applicant prepared an architectural package that was submitted to the ARB and considered at its June 23, 2021 meeting. As demonstrated in that package, the roof design was altered to accommodate a reduction in the absolute height of the roof element in the center of the 4-story portion of the IL. Specifically, the absolute height of the top of this element was reduced approximately 2-½ feet and the portion of the building that supports the center gable was narrowed. Certain other elements of the roof were also adjusted to maintain the overall proportions and aesthetic of the project, including the center gables of the two front three-story wings that were reduced in height and width proportionally in relation to the central main entry gable. In addition, the revised architectural design included a true porte-cochere for the IL building, and added a sloping roof to the AL portion of the building. Both of these improvements were consistent with the preliminary comments received from two ARB members. The zoning height of the 2 The height of this feature, as shown on the February 2021 plans, was the same as had been proposed by the Applicant since January of 2020, while the FEIS was under review. Mayor Rosenberg & Board of Trustees 7 July 2, 2021 building with these changes increased slightly from the prior design (±5.78 inches) owing to the addition of sloped roofs to the AL portion of the building, but was still greater than two feet below the maximum zoning height of 45-feet. The Applicant believes that the revised architectural design submitted to the ARB met both the spirit and letter of the BoT’s mandate. Namely, the roof element in the center of the IL was reduced in height in a manner that did not compromise the architectural integrity of the proposed design. Additional reductions in this center roof element would likely require larger and more pronounced changes to the overall design of the building and project, which was not the intent of the BoT. Further, the Applicant believes that the proposed refined design is befitting of the building’s size and location, which was approved by the BoT, and embodies the architectural character desired by the Village. ARB Report & Recommendation On June 23, 2021, the ARB met to review the architectural design and aesthetics of the project, including the IL building and its roof. In addition to two general design recommendations (i.e., changes to the window design and layout and the addition of balconies in the front of the building), the Report & Recommendation adopted at that meeting stated that, “The ARB does not recommend decreasing the roof line.” In fact, the Report noted that, “The ARB recommends increasing the height of the center roof to give the entrance a grander feel.” During discussion at the meeting, ARB members noted that further reductions in the ridge height, or “peak,” of the roof would likely not be possible while maintaining a sloped roof and the general architectural character and design of the building. Current Architectural Design The architectural design of the IL/AL building included with this July 2, 2020 submission is consistent with the design presented to the ARB. With respect to the ARB’s comments regarding window size and placement and the potential addition of balconies, the Applicant will consider those recommendations after Site Plan approval when the building design is back before the ARB. With respect to the height of the IL/AL building, the architectural sections included in this submission (Sheets BA-303 and BA-304) have been annotated with not only the elevation of the midpoint of the roof, but also with the elevation of the ridge, or “peak,” of each typical section. To further explain how the weighted average of the IL/AL building was calculated, the Applicant also provided the BoT with a document titled, “Weighted Average Summary.” As shown therein, the “zoning height” of the IL/AL building is 42.31 feet. As was consistently proposed throughout the review of this Project, the IL/AL building contains three- and four-story sections, as well as a de minimis one-story section. The roofscape of the building includes seven typical sections of roof design, each with a different height. The varying height and design of these roof elements help provide character to, and break down the massing of, the building. As shown in the current architectural design, the three-story section of the IL building, illustrated in “Typical Section A,” has its ridge height, or “peak” at approximately 41-feet ¾-inches above average grade, with the midpoint of this roof approximately 36-feet 3-inches above average grade. As noted on the architectural plans, the flat roof of this portion of the IL building, behind the false mansard roof, is approximately 34-feet 4-inches from average grade. The four-story portion of the IL building has three different roof configurations, as shown in Typical Sections B, C, and D. The ridge height, or “peak,” of these sections varies from approximately 48-feet 11-inches to approximately 58-feet 1-inch above average grade, with the midpoints of the roofs between 45-feet 6-inches and 50-feet 1-inch above average grade. The flat roof behind the false mansard of the four-story portion of the IL building is approximately 45 feet above average grade. As shown in Typical Sections F and G, the three-story section of the AL building has its ridge height, or “peak,” approximately 38-feet above average grade, with the midpoint of the roof 35-feet above average grade. The four-story section of the AL building has a ridge height, or “peak,” of approximately 52-feet 5- inches above average grade, with the midpoint of the roof approximately 46-feet 11-inches above average grade.