Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFP Clark Memo 2001-1-11 g FIIeC Rwst . D # FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC vid H. stolman, AICP,PP Planning/Development/Environment/Transportatio el A. Galante Rye, New York and Fairfield, Connecticut 1411 ne P. Meder, AICP 350 Theodore Fremd Avenue iel K. Wery, AICP Rye, New York 10580 8bJ N�p�PROpK avid J. Portman, FAICP (914) 967-6540 • FAX (914) 967-6615 oward 1. Reynolds, PE MEMORANDUM To: Christopher Bradbury, Village Administrator Date: January 11, 2001 Subject: Possible Fire House at Village Hall Property, King Street- Implications of"Harkness" PUD Relating to Access. Parking At your request, I have conducted a review of the available files and information regarding the "Harkness" Planned Unit Development (PUD), which includes the Atrium Office Building and Arbors Residential development, in relation to how the PUD requirements may affect the possibility of providing access and/or parking to a possible Fire House if constructed on the current Village Hall property on King Street. The following are my observations from a planning perspective. Since the file information is not complete, and schematic plans for a Fire House on the Village Hall site have not been prepared, these should be considered as preliminary observations, subject to further evaluation of specific plans for the possible Fire House. Back rg ound Through a search of files, documents and plans located at the Village of Rye Brook offices and at the office of Frederick P. Clark Associates, I was able to determine the following. The original "Harkness" PUD was enacted by the Town of Rye in 1973. Shortly thereafter, the Arbors residential development was built. In 1979, a site plan for the Atrium Office Building was first approved (it had to go through further approvals because of lawsuits that were filed against the applicant and Town). In approximately 1984, the Town of Rye PUD was replaced by the Village of Rye Brook's new Zoning Law. At that time, the replacement PUD was essentially the same as the Town of Rye version. Then in 1993, the Village repealed that PUD provision, and enacted a revised version of the PUD only applying to properties north of the Hutchinson River Parkway. The new PUD included a provision retaining the validity of previous PUD's in other areas (i.e., the "Harkness" PUD). Connecticut• (203) 255-3100 email@fpclark.com Long Island• (516) 364-4544 www.fpciark.com FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation On May 26, 1998, the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees adopted a resolution "Confirming the Conformance of the Existing Improvements at 900 King Street ... with the Original Site Plan Approval ..." (a copy is attached). This resolution was made necessary because of the incompleteness of the Village's records regarding the PUD approvals for the Harkness property and the apparent loss or destruction of significant documents and materials relative to the original site plan approvals. The 5/26/98 Village Board resolution specifically states that any further modifications to the site plans within this PUD shall follow the procedures and conditions required for original submittal, and that any such modification should continue to be governed by the PUD regulations in effect under the Town of Rye Code as of the date of the original site plan approval, rather than the provisions currently governing a PUD under the Rye Brook Zoning Code. The Building and Engineering Departments do have a current survey map of 900 King Street, the site of the Atrium Office Building, showing the existing layout of the site and surrounding parcel boundaries (including the adjacent Village Hall site). I also found what appears to be a final Landscaping Plan for the Atrium site, along with a December 30, 1981 Town of Rye resolution approving the Atrium Office (900 King Street) site plan. "Harkness" PUD Considerations As discussed above, the original PUD in the Town of Rye Code should apparently be used to guide any future site modifications within the "Harkness" PUD. That PUD allows up to 250 garden apartments, containing a total of 450 bedrooms, at a density of approximately 7 units per gross acre. This is based on the development in the Arbors portion. The PUD also allows professional or business office and research laboratory type uses, not exceeding two stories or 35 feet in height, and not to have a floor area ratio which exceeds 0.145 (0.190 if the entire office/research lab is leased to or owned by a single corporate entity). Open spaces and customary accessory or associated uses are also allowed. Where the PUD abuts residential districts, the PUD requires a buffer setback of all structures and parking along the abutting property line that shall be at least equal to the minimum lot depth of the abutting residential district or 150 feet, whichever is greater. The original Harkness Hospital property consisted of approximately 80 acres. In 1971, 20 acres was split off for the Blind Brook High School. The remaining 60 acres was zoned PUD in 1973. The Arbors residential portion of the PUD consisted 2 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation of 250 apartment units on +/- 36 acres (consistent with the 7 units per gross acre specified in the PUD). The Atrium Office site originally consisted of+/- 24 acres, but that also included about 6 acres for the Town Park and Arbor Drive (so the office building site actually ended up on +/- 18 acres. Site Plan Considerations If the proposed Fire House is constructed on the Town Hall site on King Street, my assumption is that it would be located at the south end of the site, and that it would have access to Arbor Drive through a strip of wooded land that is part of the Atrium Office parcel. This strip of land provides the office parcel with its only frontage on a public road (King Street), since Arbor Drive is privately owned. It appears that the approved landscaping plan for the Atrium development indicates that existing vegetation is to remain on this strip of land adjacent to Arbor Drive and King Street. Any site modifications in this area would probably require a modification of the site plan. If this strip of land were to be acquired by the Village, an alternative for public road frontage would have to be provided for the Atrium Office site (e.g., by making a portion of Arbor Drive a public road). An alternative would be to obtain an easement for access across this strip of land between Arbor Drive and the Village Hall site. In addition, if this strip of land were to be acquired by the Village, this would subtract from the gross acreage of the Atrium Office site. I am not sure how this would relate to the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted in the PUD. The Village Board of Trustee's Confirming Resolution of 5/26/98 indicates that the existing 193,975 square foot office building complies with the FAR requirement for a single tenant (0.190) and for multi-tenant occupancy (0.145). My assumption is that this clause in the resolution was based on the office site's gross acreage of 18 +/- acres. Any reduction in the acreage of the office site would probably raise the question of whether the office building's FAR would remain conforming with the PUD requirement. (In fact, a quick calculation of the square footage of the office building (193,975 sq. ft.) on 18 acres (or 784,080 sq. ft.) yields an FAR of 0.247, which actually exceeds the original PUD requirement). A further resolution by the Board of Trustees could probably address any consistency discrepancies such as this if they arise. The PUD buffer requirement noted above, unless modified, might place some constraints on locating a parking area in this strip of land. However, there appears to be sufficient area on the western portion of this strip of land to place a parking area if necessary, which would not be in the required buffer. The PUD obviously allows parking and access drives if associated with an office or research laboratory use. It is 3 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/Transportation not clear whether the PUD provisions would allow parking and access for a different use (such as a Fire House) located on an adjacent site outside of the PUD. Observations and Sug esg`tions From the limited records and information available regarding the PUD applying to the Atrium and Arbor properties, it does not appear that there are any outright prohibitions or limitations that would preclude the possibility of access or parking being provided on the strip of land between Arbor Drive and the Village Hall site, taking into consideration the factors mentioned above. It also does not appear that using this strip of land for access or parking purposes would affect the remaining lands or uses in the PUD such that those uses or areas would become inconsistent with the provisions of the PUD, except as noted above. Where there may be possible inconsistencies or creation of non-conforming situations, it appears that the Village Board could use their legislative authority to modify the PUD provisions or otherwise legislatively address any modifications that may be required. At any rate, it does appear that a modified site plan would need to be prepared and approved by the Village to show any access or parking configurations that would affect the PUD area. In fact, specific details in a site plan would be needed in order to further determine the actual impacts on or ramifications regarding the PUD. In addition, any such modifications would also likely require an environmental review pursuant to the NYS Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR). It might also be prudent for the Village to update the "Traffic Impact & Access Analysis" for the New Village Hall, which was prepared for the Village by Frederick P. Clark Associates, Inc., in September 1995. This report provided information and recommendations regarding access and traffic relating to the then proposed Village Hall on the King Street property. It did not address the possibility of a Fire House also being located on that property. The SEQR review would need to factor in changes associated with this new facility regarding its own traffic generating characteristics and access requirements. I hope that this information adequately addresses your questions regarding the "Harkness" PUD and its relation to the possibility of locating a Fire House on the 4 FREDERICK P. CLARK ASSOCIATES, INC. Planning/Development/Environment/rransportation Village Hall site. Please let me know if you have any questions on the above, or if you would like further clarification on any of the above. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Senior Associate/Planning Attachment cc: Kenneth E. Powell, Esq. Victor Carosi, P.E. Bill Gerety \\fpca1\documenu\docs2\500\rye brook\537.000.firehouse.jk.doc 5 ' n i I i May 26, 1998 On the motion of Trustee Strums seconded by Trustee Zucker man,thelfbilowing i resolution was adopted as amended: RESOLUTION i CONFIRMING THE CONFORMANCE OF THE EX] TIIYG IMPROVEMENTS AT 900 KING STREET, ! ! ! VA.I.AGE OF RYE BROOK,NEW YORK WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL(. OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF RYE FOR THAT PROPERTY AND WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF RYE f I RELEVANT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS,the Village of Brook(the the"Village")has receidy received 88 inquiries from a prospective purchases of 900 King Street,Village of Rye Brook,New York,which premises currently consists of a multi-story office building,'parking area(s) and other improvements(the"Sue"),and WHF tFAS,it appears from incomplete official records that the Site was originally improved pursuant to a Resolution of Site Plan Approval adopted by the Town ! Board of the Town of Rye(the"Town Board")on October 4, I979,as reaffirmed and modified by the Town Board on December 30, 1981, nune pro tune_and possible further fresolutions responsive to several legal actions and the settlements thereoft the complete frecords thereof do not appear to exist in the official records of the Town of Rye or this I. Village(collectively,the"Original Site Plan Approval"), as well as the duplicable provisions of the Zoning Code of the Town of Rye(the"Town Code')then in effect,and i I WHEREAS,in 1982,the Site became part of the newly formed;V•tllage,which subsequently adopted its own zoning ordinance(the"Rye Brook Zoning Code"),and WHEREAS,as a result of the inquiries made by the prospective purchaser referenced above and the search for relevant documentation in the official Village records as a result thereof,it was discovered that a number of significant documents and materials i i relative to Original Site Plan Approval are missing from the Village reccsrds and are ! j believed to have been destroyed by a flood some years ago at an off-sit location where Csuch records were stored by the Village,including an approved site plan approved landscaping plan and complete sets of other plans and related documents;and I WHEREAS,because of the incompleteness of the Village records,it is not I !, possible to answer with certainty several significant issues raised by the prospective ! I purchaser regarding compliance by the existing improvements on the Si*with the Original I } Site Plan Approval and the Town Code,and I WHEREAS,the Village Board of Trustees(tie`Board")has eeticiuded that such uncertainty would prohibit the sale and reuse of this long vacant site to the current prospective purchases as well as other prospective purchasers in the future;and WHEREAS,the Board and its professional staff have received and reviewed a i Site Plan,dated May 11, 1998,prepared by Jeter,Cook&Jepson Architects,Inc.,which I ; shows all of the existing improvements and current conditions on the Sitj(the"Current j Site Plan");and WHEREAS,pursuant to both the Town Code and the Rye BJk Zoning Code, i the Site has been,and continues to be,classified in the Planned Unit Development District ' ("PUD");and i I • I i � ! I 1 � ' r May 26, 199$ i WHEREAS,in order to bring certainty to the issue ut the-compliance of the lexisting iuryrovements and current conditions on the Site with the Orional Site Plan Approval, as well as with the applicable provisions of the Town Code,arid to establish a j I basis against which to measure future modifications or changes to the Site,the ( improvements thereon and the uses thereof,the Board is desirous of confirming the ' conformity of such existing improvements and conditions with the Ori&al Site Plan Approval and the Town Code. NOW,THEREFORE.HE Er i RESOLVED,that the Site and all existing conditions, improvements and information as shown on the Current Site Plan are hereby deemed to have been developed and in accordance with the Original Site Plan Approval and the applicable regulations of the Town Code(the"Approved Site Plan"')and,aeeocdingly,are legally conforming on t I the date hereof,and be it } FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Site's frontage along King Street of 164.78 feet is hereby deemed to satisfy the minimum frontage,as originally determined at the discretion of the Town Board pun ant to the Original Site Plan Appro,at An the Town Code;and be it } FURTHER RESOLVED,that the front, side and rear yard setbacks of 95.04 i feet,231.6 feet and 134.47 feet,respectively,are hereby deemed to satisfy the minimum j setbacks originally approved in the discretion of the Town Board tntdv!the Original Site , Plan Approval and the Town Code;and be it k ! l FURTHER RESOLVED,that the building height of 30 fed 8 inches above the i average grade of 256 feet measured from the roof line and 38 feet 2 inches above average j grade measured from the top of the parapet wall,is hereby deemed to be in conformity with the Original Site Plan Approval and the applicable height lirnitatiort of the Town f Code;and be it (li FURTHER RESOLVED,that there was no restriction under the Original Site Plan Approval or otherwise limiting the use of the property to a single tenant,and the Site !; may therefore be used by multiple tenants without additional approvals from this Board,or any other board,agency,department, or official of the Village(except fflr,building permits • I I that may be required for interior renovations and/or approvals that may be required for future modifications to the Approved Site Plan not of a minor nature and/or changes to ! the building exterior which may require Architectural Review Board approval);and be it ! FURTHER RESOLVED,that,the existing 193,975 square feat of floor area (comprised of 170,108 f square feet on two floors of office space abo 23,867 t square feet of space at ground level)complies with the floor area ratio("FAR' requirement for a I I single tenant(.190).and is further hereby deemed to comply with the FAR for multi- tenant occupancy(145)pursuant to the provisions applicable to a PUDjLinder the Town Code;and be it I FURTHER RESOLVED,that,inasmuch as the Original Site Plan Approval did ' �. not limit the use of the Site to a single tenant,it is hereby confirmed that the building and other improvements on the Site,as shown on the Current Site Plan,max be used for both multi-tenant as well as single tenant occupancy,and be it i i FURTHER RESOLVIM,that the 596 existing parking spaces pn the Site as shown on the Current Site Plan are hereby deemed to conform to the Original Site Plan Approval and the applicable off-street parking requirements under the Tbivn Code, ` I provided,however,that if the Village determines based upon its ongo• jurisdiction over I 1 tra>$c and safety considerations(as set forth in the Original Site Plan A proval),that additional parking on the site is necessary due to on-site traffic safety cerns,then such additional parking shall be provided in an amount determined appropriate by the Village { Board of Trustees;and be it i f I May 26, 1999 { FURTHER RESOLVED,that pursuant to Section 250-7,E.(4)(c)of the Rye i i I Brook Zoning Code, any modification to the Approved Site Plan"shall Qollow in full the procedures and conditions required for original submittal"and,therefoie,any such i modification should continue to be governed by the PUD regulations iri effect under the Town Code as of the date of the Original Site Plan Approval,rather th}n the provisions i =rWt]y,gong a PUD under the Rye Brook Zoning Code;and be it I i FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Resolution shall take eff!c>i mnediately ` without any further action on the part of this Board nor is arty further action on the part of l an officer,employee,agency or departmem of this Village required in order to impkanent same. ! : I I . 1 . 4 ' s l ! i i . Trustee Degling Voting Aye ; Trustee Penine Voting Aye Trustee Strom Voting Aye i Trustee Zackern Voting Aye m>i I Uyor Fdipowski Voting Aye � I i I ' • I I ' • $tat:of New Mask j Qiauutg of Mrstr4ritrr i I I � l0itlagt of$}Is amok I I hereby certify that this is the Resolution adopted by the hoard of Tru ees of the Viilagc of I Ma I 19.98— i Rye Brook which was duly Dossed by said Board on IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed Peal of the Village I ,19 QA_ I of Rye Brook,this�dthday of a _ I TOTAL P.04