HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-09-11 - Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes 0327
MINUTES OF AGENDA MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11th
1984, at the Village Office at 8 PM.
Present: Mayor Kabcenell, Trustees Meiskin, Nardi, Harris, Zak,
Attorney Kramer, Clerk Smith.
Mayor Kabcenell that even though this is an Agenda Meeting, there
were two Public Hearings, having been duly advertised, on Site Plan
approval for Royal Executive Park Phase 1B, and Rye Brook Office Park.
We will approach these separately, the first representations will be
made on behalf of Royal Executive Park.
Joel Sachs, Attorney, introduced Kurt Kilstock, President and CEO
of Royal Executive Park, and Stuart Field, Project Manager. Several
of their consultants were also present. Mr. Sachs said that a public
stenographer was expected, so Mayor Kabcenell suggested proceeding with
the Agenda Meeting during the interim.
Mayor Kabcenell reported on the softball game held on September 9th,
against the Village of Port Chester, resulting in a win for Port Chester.
A Public Hearing for Site Plan Approval for the presentation on the
Donald Art Building was scheduled for the September 25th meeting, with
the Clerk arranging the necessary publication.
A continuation of the Public Hearing on Local Laws for the Village Code.
At this point Mr. Sachs stated that after checking with William Cuddy,
Attorney for Rye Brook Office Park, a public stenographer had not been
ordered, but that he understands the Hearings will be taped.
ROYAL EXECUTIVE PARK PUBLIC HEARING.
Joel Sachs — My name is Joel Sachs and I am the attorney for Royal
Executive Parkand this is a Public Hearing on a Site Plan application
being submitted to the Village of Rye Brook, in which REP seeks approval
for what has been denoted as Phase IS of the Royal Executive Park
proposal consisting of three office buildings, each of approximately
90,000 square feet on the Royal Executive Park site.
I will try to be a brief as possible, because I know the Village
Board has extensive familiarity with this project. The Site Plan
for which we seek approval is basically a series of seven sheets dated
March 27th, 1984. We-will also note that certain of the sheets have
a number of revisions and are so noted as revised sheets and dated
September 5th, 1984. As we will discuss a little later, the
revisions on the various sheets are minor ones, basically following
the suggestions of the Planning Consultant of the Village, and the
revisions were also due to the fact that there is a slight movement
in the exact position of the buildings due to the proposal which we
have for an atrium which we will talk about in a few minutes.
Basically what I do want to indicate at the outset, which is very
important, is that we basically have for you the same set of site plan
documents which you had before you at the Public Hearing on the
Environmental Impact Statement in March of 1984. For that reason,
I want to be as brie{ as possible.
I will ask you indulgence, because this a Public Hearing, there are
certain documents which I would like to be put into the records.
First, the Village Clerk handed me a copy of the Affidavit of Publication
of the Notice of Public Hearing, was published in the Daily Item on
August 23rd, 1984 and let me again, as I did at the March 27th 1984.
EIS Hearing go back into the history of the project.
Back in 1979, Royal Executive Park submitted a proposed conceptual Site
Plan for the development of this eighty acre site, showing a proposal
to construct ten office buildings, each of 90,000 square feet,
three clusters, three buildings each, and one additional building.
0;328
There was a Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted at that time
to the predecessor Town of Rye Town Board which discussed the
environmental impact of the full 900,000 square foot proposal. In
September, 1980, the Town Board of the Town of Rye adopted a Final
EIS and I have a copy of this document here tonight and I would like
this to be made part of the record. Two months later, November 1980,
the Town Board passed a Site Plan Approval Resolution again giving
conceptual approval to the 900,000 square foot office complex,
however, indicating in that resolution that the Town of Rye was
approving a maximum of 450,000 square feet„ or five buildings, for
the first phase of the project, and there were certain conditions
which are not particularly relevant right now, but basically there was
a maximum permitted Phase I approval of five office buildings.
Several months later, in July 1981, construction commenced on the
first three buildings, in January, 1983, approximately eighteen
months later, we completed construction of the first three buildings,
and I think that the record will also reflect that we adhered very
strenuously to all the site plan conditions which bad been set forth
by the Town Board of the Town of Rye and most of those conditions were
based on the recommendations of the Planning Board and the Planning
consultants. Let me just indicate that the Planning Consultant at
that time, Frederick P. Clark Associates, has continued to be the
Planning Consultant, I think also, as this Board is aware, with one
exception the Planning Board of the Town of Rye now serves as the
Planning Board of the Village of Rye Brook. In any event, in 1983,
after the completion of the buildings, Royal Executive Park was able
to fully lease the three buildings — two of the three buildings
are leased to MCI Incorporated and the third building is fully
leased to Nynex Corporation, so we basically have two major corporate
tenants occupying the entire 270,000 square feet of office space.
Thereafter in the Fallof1983, we came to the Village with an
application for Phase IB to build an additional 270,000 square feet
directly opposite the existing 270,000 square feet, and at that ,
time the three building were meant to be very much a mirror image
of the existing three buildings on the site, and we called this
Phase IB rather than Phase II, because we had gotten this conditional
approval by the Rye Town Board to build the two additional buildings,
so we were basically asking this Board to allow us to proceed with
the original approval the Town of Rye Board had given us, plus give us
the opportunity to build one additional building. Let me indicate,
even though, back in 1981 and continuing to 1983, we built only the
first cluster of buildings, when the initial construction was done,
the entire infrastructure basically for all ten possible buildings
was put in place — what we are talking about are the sewer lines,
water lines, various easements were given, right—of—ways were provided
for certain roads, which we'll talk about a Little later, so basically
the major infrastructure items were all in place when we applied.
In November 1983, we submitted a document titled Draft Supplement .
to the Royal Executive Park Final Environmental Impact Statement,
and contained therein we indicated that all the environmental
impacts of the proposal had been discussed in the 1980 Final
EIS and that the one significant impact which felt and the Village felt
deserved further input and study was the entire traffic situation.
So at the point I would like to have marked into the record, the
November 1983, Draft Supplement to the FEIS. I think that this
Board knows the document was circulated to various governmental
agencies and circulated to various adjacent municipalities,
including Harrison, Greenwich and I believe North Castle,
copies were made available to the public through the office of the
Village Clerk. Comments came in to the Village from certain
governmental agencies and certain private citizens, and on March 27th,
1984, this Board, as the lead agency, under the State
Environmental Quality Review Law, held a Public Hearing on the Draft
EIS, at which time we did receive a large number of comments
from the public, and some from certain governmental agencies and some
of the municipalities had representatives which were also present.
The clerk does have on file, I believe, a copy of the March 27th
Public Hearing, and I would also like to have that transcript be
deemed marked as part of the record this evening. Thereafter
0323
as a result of the Public Hearing, and the comments, both oral and
written which had been received, our consultants prepared a document
entitled "Responses to Questions" dated May 1984, and these basically
were comments prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner Inc. our
Traffic Consultants in response to comments which had been raised
about the traffic impact of the further development of the Royal
Executive Park parcel, as well as the proposed development of the
adjacent parcel. These comments again were circulated to various
public agencies, governmental agencies and members of the public,
and finally, in July 1984, this Board adopted a document entitled
- Final Supplement to the Royal Executive Park Final Environmental
Impact Statement. I would like to have this document also deemed ,
marked in the evidence.
Basically, now, we have reached, and we had reached, several months
ago the end of the entire environmental impact process. Now that we
have reached that point, we are requesting that the Board grant Site
Plan approval for Phase IB, which again is the second cluster of
three buildings. As I indicated, the site plan documents are dated
March 27th, there some minor revisions dated September 5th, which our
consultants can go over with you, I think it should be noted that we
had at least three public meetings with the Planning Board before we
came here, there were a number of suggestions_ made by the Planning
Board which we have attempted to embody in our plans, T believe
you have been or should be provided with a copy of the recommendations
' of the Planning Board which does recommend approval of the Site Plan
and insofaras the traffic is concerned, that is an issue for the
Village Trustees to consider. In addition, I think we should know
that we have met on several occasions with Frederick Weidle, who is
a senior partner in Frederick P. Clark Associates. Mr. Weidle had
also made certain suggestions concerning revisions to our Site Plan,
most of them minor in nature and most of them merely requiring some
additional annotations to the plans. I had my most recent
conversation with Mr. Weidle yesterday afternoon at about 4 PM and
he suggested some further annotations and some further modifications
to the site plan, documents have been worked on these proposed
modifications this morning, and we delivered those to Mr. Weidle's
office at approximately noon today. We met with our consultants
and Mr. Weidle, approved the modifications which were made, having met
his suggestions. He made one or two additional suggestions at
noontime today and those have also now been embodied in the documents,
before us. -
Basically, at this point, what I would like to do is call on our
consultant, DMJM Associates, who is the architect who is responsible
for developing the site plan documents who will talk very, very briefly
about the site plan, again we'll keep it brief because I believe you
are familiar with the concept here. The only real modification we
have made, which is really in a sense a relatively minor one, is the
introduction of an atrium concept between the three buildings.
At this point I would like to introduce Mr. Paul Brott, of DMJM
Associates to discuss very briefly the site plan.
Mr. Brott - It seems that every time I come I promise to be brief,
and I don't want to break a tradition, so I will be brief. Mark Lancoor
is here from our WhitePlainsoffice and we have set some boards up on
the other side, and perhaps he might help me as we go through this.
Joel has indicated that we are talking about the second cluster of
three out of the original ten buildings on an eighty acre site. The
particular area we are discussing is north of the existing development
of the first three, that area shaded in green. It represents part
of a 50.2 acre site out of the original eighty that I mentioned.
The first three buildings have been put up, and I might say the
developer has provided everything that had been promised all along -
quality project, of which there exists three buildings, south of what
we are talking about along King Street. (Pictures were compared here
to show the pond area showing enhancement of the area and preservation
of the green space that does exist along King Street). I make that
point and strengthen it by getting to the second cluster that we are
talking about and from the other side as well. I say strengthen it
because one of the things we are talking about here in the introduction
of the atrium - moving two of the cluster elements slightly closer
together and creating an enclosed space, a controlled environment
growing space. In doing that, we have been able to maintain, and I
think it shows better on your set of drawings, perhaps the last sheet
will indicate it best of all, in doing this we are able to increase
the buffer zone and the planting area along King Street to maintain
.03;0
a thicker green area and at the same time maintain an existing
growth line along the entryway, and it is our intent to supplement
both of those two areas with additional plant materials which is
indicated on that. Of that particular space which would be a roofed-
over garden, which is the simplest way to explain it, environmentally
controlled all year round, we truly do plan to have some rather nice
spaces areas which can be used on a year-round basis. The space
would be landscaped year-round use, and we believe quite an amenity
that's been added, and the design consultant and planning consultant
for the Board has reacted very favorably to this and complimented it ,
quite nicely, we think. We are talking about that type of a space
which in plan is indicated by an area that looks and is representative
of approximately 50 to 80 feet in horizontal dimension., at the Lowest
level, and a terrace effect that would be created on the two side
buildings that would step it back and cause an opening of the space as
it goes upward, so in feel it would be considerably larger than the
80 feet that we are talking about in horizontal dimension at the ground _
floor.
With that, and the introduction of the last closure and as I think I
said on the site plan, the additional green borderline, the areas of
existing growth and then strengthening that with new plant material,
we think we have improved something that we started with in 1979 and
followed quite closely. I might also point out that even though Joel
has indicated all of the infrastructure required, not only for this
cluster but for the entire cluster is in place. There is no
question with regard to any capacity, be it water, sewer or power,
it is there, it is all available, so there is no question with respect
to this particular cluster as to whether or not we could move ahead, .
it is a simple matter of tapping those lines which exist today.
One other amenity which of course, doesn't show in any of these
drawings on the atrium that has been planned and will be put in place
as soon as possible, with the beginning of construction, will be a
jogging path and an eighteen-station exercise area that has been
committed by the developer to be induced into the project, and I think
that Joel has in the past made reference to the use of that particular
type of facility. I think, with that Mr. Mayor, once again - brief,
and if there are any questions -
Mayor Kabcene Ll - I just want toaddfor Information for everyone,
it is very clear that the atrium is not to be construed as additional
usable space, it is an amenity whichisin exchange for the open area.
It cannot be used for any other purpose than just that. Let us
finish the presentation and then if there are any questions....
Joel Sachs - Mr. Mayor, the way that I think we propose to proceed
this evening if to basi Cally complete our presentation at this point.
Our traffic consultant, Michael Weiner, of Raymond, Parish, Pine &
Weiner is here this evening, and I had a discussion prior to the
meeting with Mr. Cuddy and I think that perhaps the appropriate way
is to have the other public hearing proceed with non-traffic aspects,
and thereafter since Mr. Weiner's firm has been retained by both
applicants, to have one common presentation on traffic. I do though
want to indicate that on sheet 7-7 is shown a right-of-way for a
100 foot roadway to be built at some point in the future through the
Royal Executive Park property and we are not sure at this point
of the exact location, but we are committing ourselves, maybe I should
say recommitting ourselves to a commitment we made back in 1980,
to provide a right-of-way of approximately 100 feet, plus provide
necessary grade and slopings which we would agree to construct this
road at our expense on our property, and pay our fair share for
off-site road improvements, which will benefit our project as well
as benefit other developers in the Village of Rye Brook.
Mayor Kabcenell - For those of you who are not familiar, we are seeking
a commitment from all developers in that area for the provision of an
additional road, kind of parallel to King Street, to take some of the
excess traffic directly on to Route 684 and Royal Executive Park and
the other developers in the area have committed themselves to the
easement, with the building of the road and a share of the off-site
improvements to get the continuity of the road. The details will
have to be spelled out but that is a commitment that we are requiring
and that is the commitment that Royal Executive Park is making.
0331.
Before we deal with the other, is there anyone with any questions
related to the site plan development, other than traffic?
Trustee Meiskin - the pond in the lower right hand corner, is that a
retention basin or just serves as an aesthetic view
Answer from rear of room (Stuart Field) distorted by noises near
microphone.
Trustee Meiskin - my question is prefaced by the last heavy rain we
had, that pond overflowed, and cut approximately half of King Street's
traffic flow. That was a very heavy rain back in April, I guess.
Joel Sachs - I think Mr. Field is the best person to indicate what
happened. There was a blockage under King Street on the Greenwich
side, cause by a Greenwich property owner, in a culvert, and Greenwich
had to come and clean out the culvert.
Further comments by Mr. Field were inaudible.
Trustee Meiskin - with respect totheroad, how do we guarantee
that the 100 foot road easement that you have, will meet the contiguous
development at the other end so that they meet in the middle?
Joel Sachs - we did have that problem previously, the Town Board of the
Town of Rye approved our first phase of the site plan, showing a
through road and they also approved the Citicorp site plan for Arrowwood
which also showed a through road, and unfortunately the two roads did
not meet and our consultants did get together with Citicorp consultants
and we straightened out the alignment of the two roads, and what we
had to do was to give easements to the water companies since water
services come from Anderson Hill Road through the Citicorp property
up along the Royal Executive Park property, so there is a continuous
easement now over what we believe would be the center line of the
proposed road, and I thinkwhat we have attempted to is to indicate
that whatever is the exact location of this road may be when it leaves
our site, whether we are talking about a north/south road going past
the airport, or east/west crossing Purchase Street, or possibly
some sort of road going south into the Hutchinson River Parkway, that
the approximate location of the roadway on our property would be the
same regardless of the connection, and I believe Citicorp site plan
right-of-way to the road also contemplates the same thing.
Mayor Kabcenell - are there any questions?
Trustee Zak - how would you clean all that glass in the atrium?
Answer - Rigginglines come from the top - with a cradle.
Trustee Harris - Positioning of buildings 1, 2 and 3 brings them
closer together, does that affect considerations of firefighting?
Mr. Bott - We have discussed that with fire officials, and the atrium
is constructed of noncombustible materials, and has fire sprinklers.
Trustee Nardi - the existing pond, could that possibly be modified to
serve as a retention basin.
Answer inaudible.
Mr. Miller, Resident - who will own those roads, the corporations
or will the Village own them?
Attorney Kramer - they will be dedicated and become Village property.
Resident Ken Heller - the land between Royal Executive Park and Rye
Brook Office Park still belongs to High Point Hospital. We would
need an easement through that property.
Mayor Kabcenell - we will deal with that in a few minutes.
0332
Joel Sachs - I would like to make reference to documents that we have
to put into the record. In addition to the report and recommendations
of Frederick P. Clark Associates of July 26th, Frederick P. Clark
Associates sent a list of questions to Royal Executive Park and a
similar set of questions to Rye Brook Office Park, and I would like
those questions and responses by Royal Executive Park given in
August 1984 also made part of the record.
Mayor Kabcenell - we will deal with some of these and the Planning
Board's response after we get all of the presentations, so that
everyone is aware of what the Planning Board says and the other _.
considerations here. If there are no other questions at this ,
point on the site development other than considerations for traffic,
we will move on to the presentation by representatives of the Rye
Brook Office Park. Perhaps Mr. Cuddy would be good enough to
identify those people who will participate.
William Cuddy, Attorney for Rye Brook Office Park - with me tonight are
Mr. Kenneth Hubbard, the executive vice-president of Gerald D. Hines
& Co. , the managing partner of High Point Associates, the developer
of Rye Brook Office Park, Mr. Thomas Craig of Gerald D. Hines,
Mr. Thomas Adams of the SWA Group of Cambridge, Mass. the site
development group for this project, Mr. Michael Weiner of Raymond,
Parish, Pine & Weiner, and Mr. Dolf Rotfeld, who has been involved with
drainage and other matters.
I think, procedurally, the Board should temporarily adjourn the prior
hearing and convene our hearing now, and if you would deem that to he
the case, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Kabcenell - We will adjourn with the understanding that we will
return to considerations of traffic after this, and convene the hearing
relating to site plan approval application of Rye Brook Office Park,
which has also been duly advertised in the newspaper.
Mr. Cuddy - if you will bear with me, I am going to get some of the
tedious legalistic aspects of this out of the way right away. I have
a document. to be placed on record, and other documents which I want
to refer to which are in the custody of the Village and which I -
would like to have placed on record and incorporated as evidence
in this hearing.
First of all, the affidavit of publication in the Westchester-
Rockland newspapers, sworn to on September 5, 1984 which I hand to the
Clerk, and the following documents, once more, it may be tedious, but
I want to be sure we've covered everything.
Conceptual Site Plan dated August 31, 1984
Grading Plan dated July-30, 1984
Landscape Site Plan dated July 30, 1984*
Preliminary Landscape Concept Plan dated August 1984
Water Supply and Fire Protection Plan dated August 1984
Sanitation Sewer System dated August 1984
Storm Drainage and Retention System dated August 1984
Sketch of proposed road from Anderson Hill Road to Westchester
County Airport and I-684 interchange
Plan showing the proposed alignment of the road through property
over which High Point Associates venture has dominion dated
August 1984
Zoning Comparison/Compliance Table dated August 1984
Drainage Report dated September 5, 1984
Letter of Frederick P. Clark Associates to William V. Cuddy, Esq.
dated July 26th, 1984
Letter from William V. Cuddy, Eso. to Frederick P. Clark Associate®
dated September 5, 1984
Report to RyeBrook Planning Board from Frederick P. Clark Associates
dated September 5, 1984
Recommendations of Rye Brook Planning Board of September 6, 1984
DEIS dated October 1983, including transcript of hearing
FEIS dated July 10, 1984
* This may appear to be a misnomer, but there were changes in the site
plan which were responsive to comments by the Planning Board, and
Frederick P. Clark Associates, and as a consequence, there were minor
changes in the landscaping.
0331
Mayor Kabcenell — these will all be incorporated in the record.
William Cuddy —-I am going to be brief, you have heard as has the
Planning Board and the public, aspects of this program in detail.
I am going to ask Mr. Kenneth Hubbard of Gerald D. Hines, and who is
essentially responsible for their projects on the East Coast, to
give you a brief idea of their involvement in the project and their
goals. You have had in the past materials submitted to you with
respect to Gerald D. Hines Co. which has developed on a selective
- basis throughout the United States, some very unique buildings, with
some very prestigious tenants as joint ventures. Most recently,
and I think most relevantly, a joint venture with CBS in New York
City, an office building in which E.F. Hutton has made a commitment
for upwards of 600,000 square feet. This is reflective of the calibre
of the tenants and the quality of architecture and the sensitivity
of what they have done.
Trustee Harris — I haven't seen any of the 1984 maps and plans,
which were given in just two days ago.
Mr. Cuddy — There were revisions in the site plan .that were
responsive to suggestions and comments from the Planning
Consultants, Frederick P. Clark, and the Planning Board, and they
are included in the documents which I asked to be made part of the
record. They are not significant revisions, but there are
revisions in the front of the building and traffic circulation
which were specifically responsive to suggestions made by the
Planning Board.
Mayor Kabcenell — are there drawings which respresent the changes?
Mr. Cuddy — Yes, Mr. Morrow has a set, as does the Planning Board
and Mr. Fidelibus. Mr. Fidelibus has reviewed them and given his
affirmation.
Mr. Hubbard — Thank you for the opportunity to come before you
tonight. We first started working on this project in June 1981,
and our firm is a developer, an investor and longterm owner of what
we develop. If we have a hallmark, there is a desire and a very
strong interest and commitment for architectural excellence in what we
do. When the project is completed we certainly intend to own it
and operate it. In the case of this project, we would certainly
look forward to future phases, which puts a higher responsibility
on us initially, with respect to what we want to do in the future.
As part of thos objectives, we have retained the architectural firm
of Philip Johnson and John Burges, they have been involved with this
throughout the process in designing the concept of the building that
you see in the model here. We have retained the firm which enjoys
an international reputation as well as a good reputation here in the
northeast, SWA Associates, with whom we have worked on other parts,
and their manager will speak to you in a few moments about the site
plan. So, since June of 1981, we have only proved our abaility to
be patient, we have now proved our ability {o coordinate the
construction of the model. We are really here tonight to be good
listeners and let you speak tonight and we will listen, but be happy
to respond to any questions you might have and appreciate the chance
to come before you.
Thomas Adams of SWA Associates — I just have a few words maybe to
clarify a little bit about the drawings that you have in front of
you versus the ones that were submitted earlier. If you recall, we
- did go through a whole analysis as we looked at slope maps, and
soils and vegetation and this was really a summary map pointing out
pointing out the opportunities and constraints of the site with
deep slopes basically shown in the darker brown, vegetation and
tree cover in the darker olive green, open areas in the lighter
colors, then potential access points, the potential roads coming
through and stone walls on King Street and Lincoln Avenue.
If there are any questions about any of the other analysis points,
I do have them here but I am not going to use them all.
The program that we are talking about is still consistentwiththe
program that was discussed in that the site concept plan still talks
about a building of 200,000 quare feet. It is located on 30 acres
or a total 82 acre site and 82 acres is what is colored on this map
and is also what is rendered on the model.
0334
In terms of parking, we. have 666 cars which is one car per 300 s.f.
which is consistent with the village guidelines. What has changed
slightly in the site plan from the plans you have in front of you,
is the entrance into the building as shown on the plan here, and
it is probably more clearly shown on the model, has been opened up
to make it a more gracious entry, and furthermore provide
circulation all the way around the building. This was done in
response to suggestions we received.
(Further description of the site area was not audible, since Mr.
Adams walked over to the model and faced in the other direction).
At the request of the consultants we had prepared this table
which I would like to run down which talks about what is required
under zoning and what is on the plan. Under terms of what is
allowable under Zoning OBI, permitted principal uses are offices,
research and testing labs, executive learning centers on the 30 acre
site, we are talking about the Phase 1 site now. We have an
executive, corporate office type building.
The Floor Area Ratio that's allowed would be .30 on 82 acres, or
in excess of one million square feet. For the 30 acres using the
same Floor Area Ratio, would be 392,000 square feet.
We have in this first phase, 200,000 s.f. which works out to be
a FAR of .153, which is slightly over half of what we would actually
be allowed.
The frontage says that in order to have this type of office
development, you need 500 feet on a major street - we have 1100
on one and 1200 on the other.
Building Setback says that buildings have to be 200 feet from the
street and we are set back 370 feet from both these streets.
The parking setback requirement is 100 feet minimum, we are over
300 feet from Lincoln and we are 100 feet from King for the first
parking lot, and 250 feet for the next.
Height restriction is 4 storey or 50 feet, our building is 3 storey
and 44 feet in height.
The other drawings which Mr. Cuddy referred to - preliminary grading
plan - updated and consistent with the new configuration of the entry.
Mr. Cuddy 7 1 would like to point out that this model is to scale
and will give you a fine-visual projection, and shows the new
configuration. The scale is double that of the drawings.
Trustee Zak - is it possible to empty the retention basis when a
storm is due.
Mr. Adams - this is not a retention basin, it is a grass Swale
which will hold excess water.
Trustee Meiskin - the main exit seems to be facing Lincoln Avenue,
could you describe the exits and entrances?
Mr. Adams - traffic coming up Lincoln would make a left turn into
the oval and proceed around the oval to the right. There are three
zones of parking, and a formal dropoff in front of the building.
There are no exits or entrances on King Street for this phase.
Trustee Nardi - looking at the model, it would appear that the
building would not be visible from the street, other than at the
entrance. Is that so?
Mr. Adams - that's basically true, I think you may see from the
corner of Lincoln and King, there is a desire to be seen, we don't
want to have it totally hidden, but as you come along King Street,
there is a beautiful stone wall along there now and the intention
is really to just clean that up. In the Summertime; you would
not see much of the building, in the winter time you may see a little
bit since there are mostly deciduous trees, and the same would
be true along Lincoln.
�733F:�
Resident - emergency vehicles, how would they get there - King
Street?
Answer - it depends where they come from.
Melvin Logan, resident - I am in favor of all of this and think
these people should donate land for the Village for a firehouse.
Mayor Kabcenell - If there are no further questions from this
developer, I will reconvene the Public Hearing of Royal Executive
Park Phase IB, so that both will be dealt with in terms of traffic.
Michael Weiner, of Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner -
We have spoken at great length in the past about traffic and
rather than go through the nuts and bolts of it, which I think we
have talked about and filled the record voluminously in the past,
I would like to, if I may, step back half a step, and look at
it perhaps a little bit philosophically, because I think it bears
on the whole question of site plan approval before you tonight.
Let me begin by saying that Raymond, Parish, Pine & Weiner has
.been retained by both of the developers who are before you tonight
for site plan approval. In both cases, we prepared the
Environmental Impact Statement and in both cases, we have done the
traffic analysis and traffic studies for the developer, so there
is a commonality of approach to the whole traffic issue and it
has been from the very beginning. I think it is worth while
bearing in mind a number of things when we talk about traffic here
and on King Street.
First, in both cases, we are talking about parcels of land which
are 80 acres in size and under the present zoning in the Village,
each of those parcels could accomodate roughly one million s.f.
of office development, plus or minus.
In both cases, when we were involved early on in the planning and
environmental studies, we pointed out to both developers that in
our judgement the existing roads could not in any way, handle the
traffic that would be generated by one million s.f. on each of the
sites. In the case of REP, several years back, and RBOP in the
past couple of years, we, from the very beginning in the evolution
of the site plan, worked out a level of development that it is
considerably under the market demand, but matched to the capacity
of the streets to absorb the traffic that they would create.
In the case of Royal Executive Park, Phase 1B, we are talking about
270,000 s.f. and Rye Brook Office Park, 200,000 s.f. and we had
gone through a very elaborate series of traffic analysis to
determine how many cars would be generated by each development,
to assign them to the roads and test the Limits of capacity in
the system.
The limitations that we found were essentially threefold -
1. At the intersection of King Street and Anderson Hill Road - that
intersection has two lanes in each approach and there is no traffic
light, only a blinker, and it is a zoo. It doesn't work very well
today. We knew that if we put in a traffic light today, that
the present geometry of that street would operate very well.
The traffic light control, contrary to what some people may suppose,
improves operation of a street by acting as a traffic cop, and
letting people operate in rational and orderly fashion. If you were
to put a traffic light there today, it would operate at a very
satisfactory level of service, but adding the new office space in
these two developments would eventually push against the capacity
of the intersection and what we discovered was that taking the
level of the road capacity in front of you now for site plan
approval, we had pretty much used up the entire capacity of that
entire intersection, if we made a series of improvements that were
outlined in the EIS. The improvements are really conceptually
very simple - first, they involve putting in a traffic light, so that
we have some sense of flow; second, they involve providing left
turns and right turns for people coming up to the intersection,
so that somebody waiting to make a left turn, doesn't block
everybody behind him.
0,338
Dolt (Rotfeld) and I have been working with traffic engineers
and Public Works people in Greenwich, since this intersection is in
Greenwich, on the detailed plans for the carrying out of that
improvement. We talked at great length in previous meetings
about the different ways we had approached and studied this traffic.
In the first place, we are talking about peak-hour phenomenon
in the area - in the a.m. traffic coming in and in the p.m. traffic
going out, and we are not even talking about a whole hour's worth,
we are talking about 15 or 20 minutes of peak of the peak, at which
point we would be pushing the capacity of the intersection. '
During the rest of the day, the intersection would operate at
satisfactory levels, during the evening it would operate at
satisfactory levels, all day Saturday and Sunday when people are
home in Rye Brook, it would operate at satsifcatory levels, but
looking at that peak period, 15-20 each AM and PM, these two
developments push it up to about its capacity.
Now, we did the analysis as we said at the Last public hearing,
on a conservative basis, i.e. in accordance with procedures
of the Institute of Transportation Engineers., and they set forth
very conservative methodology. They also introduced the materials
that we have found by looking at Texaco, MCI and Pepsico and some
of the other corporate users in the area. If you Look at this
' building, for example, you will see rtotican ordinary kind of
office building that a typical builder would put together, but you
will see an above-average building intended to appeal to and attract
corporate users . The difference between a corporate user and
what we call a multi-tenant user is that with the corporate user, you
may, - not always, but you may - get a much lower occupancy in the
number of workers. We have found for example, that under the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, you ordinarily get 3.7 persons
per 1000 s.f. , and at Texaco and Pepsico, we found that the ,
number is actually about 2.3 per 1000 s.f. Considerably Less. Why?
Because corporations feel differently about space and they set
different standards. Not every corporation acts that way, some
are just the same as a multi-tenant, but some are much lower.
The fact of the matter is that if these buildings are occupied by
corporate users, we would expect to get a Lower traffic generation
than comes from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Book, and Fred
Weidle and his people reviewed tit and agreed that that could happen.
We haven't discussed in what proportion the users would be
corporate, because at this moment, nobody knows. I cannot
guarantee that it will be all corporate or zero corporate, but
it is reasonable to suppose that some proportion of it would be
corporate, because if you look at REP, it is all corporate - Nynex
and MCI, large users - and if you look at this building, it is
the kind of building that appeals to corporate users. With a
corporate user we discovered that when we went through the charts,
that we were well within the capacity of that street. In other
words there was morecapacity left. If these two developments
at this size, proceed and attrac@ 'a mix, some multi tenant and
some corporate tenants.
The same thought process applies to the street itself, because
there is a limitation - King Street is a two-lane street and
nobody has proposed to widen it in any way, shape or form.
It is a two way street and it does have a limitation as to
the number of trips that it can carry, and we find that the same li
limitation that applies to King Street and Anderson Hill Road
essentially applies to the street as a whole, i.e. These two
developments in the peak hour will push us to about the capacity
of the street and if there are no corporate users, we will be right
up at that capacity level. In layman's terms, it means that in
those 15-20 minutes in the morning and those 20 minutes in the
afternoon; there will be some queuing up; there will be people
that sometimes have to wait more than one traffic lighttoget
through. So we are not talking about a New York City gridlock
nightmare, we are talkingabout a relative situation, i.e. Yes,
there would be some queuing up; there would be some delays, but
it will clear itself up and it will be a temporal phase that
lasts 15-20 minutes in the peak hours.
033 /
The situation applies down at the Hutchinson River Parkway and
King Street where we have proposed a series of improvements to
the operational characteristics of that intersection. Most of
the improvements are operational — some of them would involve
construction, for example, the on—ramps leading on to the
Hutchinson River Parkway are much too short and have no storage
place now. This was brought out at the last pulic hearing so
that we have talked about the possibility of reworking this
to provide an extended storage area so that people can get on
the Hutchinson River Parkway and the Merritt Parkway.
As you know that state line runs right down the middle of King
Street and we would have to achieve the same kind of cooperation
that we have already achieve from Greenwtcb:-1n:•s6Tvifl9'Lb&t
problem, and there isn't any reason to believe that we wont, be—
cause Dolf and I have gotten terrific cooperation from Greenwich.
I would say as a matter of fact, they are pushing us now. They
are literally picking up the phone and asking where are the plans
and let's get going! I have no reason to believe the same thing
wont happen as we go down to the Hutchinson River Parkway and
the King Street intersection.
Basically,the improvements are not that complex, and I believe
they are to everbyody's advantage to implement. With these
improvements, that intersection will operate a satisfactory
level. In order to go beyond these development levels, and
as I say this site could take one million square feet, and this
is 20 percent, Royal Executive Park the same, where the original
site plan was 900,000 square feet we are now looking at half.
In order to go beyond that in our judgement the only way the
traffic can be made to operate satisfactorily is to provide a
relief value and that could have a number of configurations.
It could be the north/south road that we have discussed that
goes down to the Hutchinson River Parkway, or deadends at
Citicorp or any one of a half dozen other configurations, but
the main thing is to provide a tap from these King Street
properties directly over to 684 which is where most people
want to go. That tap could happen at exit 2 at the airport, it
could happen at a new intersection with Barnes Lane in Harrison,
with the east/west road. It could happen in both, and at
this point it is not within the purview or control of the
Village of Rye Brook to decide that, because it really is a re—
gional sort of issue that involves Greenwich, Harrison, North
Castle and all the other town in this area.
As your own consultant pointed out, there is development
occuring all around the Village. American Can is empty now
in Greenwich; some day it.will be resold and reoccupied
and there will be more people up there, the Greco
(?.) property'is now being developed up on King Street, other
properties are being sold and plans are being prepared for them.
We have the Xerox case in Greenwich, that is going to bring
more square footage into this corridor, and we know that
Harrison is developing properties — the Nestles and in
other areas of the town and this pressure....... ....(inaudible).
We belive that if nothing is done, if neither Rye Brook Office
Park nor Royal Executive Park proceed, would have exactly the same
situation on King Street that we have discussed, that is you
would be pushing it up to capacity, but it wouldn't be your traffic
that would be doing it, it would be Greenwich, Nort Castle,
Harrison, and things of that sort.
The situation that we have here is that the developers limited
the development so that existing streets could carry them and
agree to participate in an equitable way in the obviously re—
quired north/south, east/west combination of future roads to
enable future development to happen.
0338
The taxes that come out of these developments and the improvements
that they will make go a substaintial way towards easing theI.
situation. Royal Executive Park has put in a left turn situation
at their entrance on King Street, and we have suggested that
Rye Brook Office Park put the same kind of left turn situation
up at Lincoln Avenue so that we could store the cars and make
left turns without restricting southbound traffic. So you
already see bits and pieces of the necessary improvements on
upper King Street as a result of these developments. The res-
ervation of the right of way through here which would match
up with the Royal Executive Park right of way would
permit the north/south road to be developed and/or the east/west..... .
Lookedat philosophically, the developments before you have been
artificially limited in scope to try to fit them in to the
capacity of the existing streets. The developers have made com-
mitments to builda north/south road and to give right of way
for it, which will enable them to go ahead and it seems to me
that that kind of rational approach, where the square footage
is limited to the ability of the street system and offers to
participate in the necessary improvements, represents a very
rational way to deal with the whole traffic... .... .....
Trustee Harris - What would you expect the cost of the traffic
improvements to be?
Mr. Weiner - No one has done the kind of engineering in con-
nection with the north/south road; we know approximatley where
it would go. Improvements on King Street would be in excess
of half a million dollars.
By agreeing to participate in the improvements on Anderson Hill Road and
King Street, they have met the demands of the street in front
of their building. It will operate and work. The longer term
situation - the north/south road, King Street/Hutchinson River '
Parkway - will require further developement in terms of land.
Attorney Kramer - Does the half million dollars include the
three intersections on King Street - Anderson Hill, Lincoln
and the Hutchinson River Parkway?
Mr. Weiner - Only Lincoln Avenue and Anderson Hill Road at King
Street, not King Street/Hutchinson River Parkway - that is bi
state which is a problem all over again.
Dolf has done the engineering up here; we have not been asked
or retained to do numbers at King Street/Hutchinson River
Parkway. Signalisation at King Street/Anderson Hill Road
is included in those figures.
Joel Sachs - Traffic people in Greenwich have told us that
they are prepared to make a substantial cash contribution to
improvements at Anderson Hill Road.
Trustee Meiskin - Can you spell out the possibility of these
buildings, both projects going up without any of the improvements.
What is the time line of some of these improvements in relation
to the Village; will they be in place 50%, 100%?
Mr. Weiner - The two that we can control will essentially be
in place - King Street/Anderson Hill Road and King Street and Lincoln Avenue.
Trustee Meiskin - You can control one other too; that is the
storage space that you alluded to at the entrance to the Hutchinson
River Parkway southbound, off King Street.
Mr. Weiner - That involves us dealing with the East Hudson Parkway Authority
which is a whole other separate level of government. Yes, it is
possible to undertake and to start to deal with that particular
issue, these happen to be streets in front of us, that we can deal
with. We will probably not be, able to deal with that absent
agreement from Greenwich about the whole intersection. Basically,
what we propose to do there in simplest terms - it now operates
as a diamond, and we want to make it operate as a cloverleaf. In
order to do that we must have the acquienscence of Greenwich. I
don't think it can be painful to Greenwich; we are not asking them
to do anything that would not be in their favor.
Trustee Meiskin - Are you directed toward that or is that something 0338
on the side? -
Mr. Weiner - We would be very happy to do that If the Board
suggests to you that is something we should be involved with. We
were told specifically to proceed and do the King Street/
Anderson Hill Road so that we have made contact with Greenwich and
have been very favorably received.
Mayor Kabcenell - We have an upcoming meeting with Greenwich, we will
raise that issue. We nrr looking Or their acquiescenre and I have a
--, feeling that they are now looking positively at that.
Trustee Meiskin - the two you control , King/Anderson 8111 and King/Lincoln
you are saying will be in place by the time the buildings are up?
Mr. Weiner - We are finishing the final drawings now, and there Is no
reason why it cannot proceed. There will be. no Connecticut property
involved in the necessary improvements up there. It will all come
off the Rye Brook side.
Trustee Zak - Perhaps the tenants will stagger hours such
as Texaco, spreading arrivals and departures over a period of
time, instead of having everyone come to work at the same
time.
' Mr. Weiner - We have tried to do this on a worst case
scenario. What Is the worst If all the good things we hope will
happen, don't happen. What if there Is no corporate user? What
has happened at MCT and Nynex - Nynex works 8-4. MCI varies its
departures, 4:30, 5:00, 5:30,
Joel Sachs - There are staggered hours, Metropool reports 100
users. They permit buses to enter the property, and have a
bus stop. As the months go by more and more employees seem to
be taking advantage of publJc transportation.
Trustee Melskln - Is there going to be development of a
possible traffic district to develop a fair share arrangement...
Mr. Weiner - That's for the north/south road, the developers
are going to be paying for the other improvements outside of the
north/south road.
Trustee Meiskin - We want to make sure that none of the existing
residences will be affected by It. High Point has some property
that Interdicts the north/south roadway.
Mr. Weiner - Somewhere between Rye Brook Office Park and
and Royal Executive Park that road going through there is a
very important part of the process of Improvement; I find
it impossible to believe that any landowner wouldn't Jump at
the chance to have that connection. Let me put it this way, a
road is a public Improvement - in the worst of all circumstances, that
could be comdeinned, but. I don't anticipate thatwould happen.
William Cuddy - I represent the Joint venture comprised of High
Point Associates of which Dr. Gralnick Is a principal ,
and Innes Interests, and we recngnize that reality and
Implications. 1 don't represent Dr. Gralnick , so f don't
want to be put In a position of speaking for him. We will have
to speak to him, I understand the realities of it. We will
have to take that issue up with him and we are prepared to ask
for his cooperation.
Mayor Kabcenell - That is a question that will have to be resolved
before we will give approvals.
I have a Rye Brook Planning Board report In this matter meeting
of 916184,