Loading...
17 - AlternativesDEIS 17-1 9/12/2018 Chapter 17: Alternatives This Chapter provides a narrative description of each alternative required to be analyzed pursuant to the adopted Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Scoping Outline (see Appendix A-1) and evaluates the potential environmental impacts within each impact category addressed in the DEIS. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requires a description and evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of the Applicant. The description and evaluation of each alternative should be at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of the alternatives discussed and a comparison with the Proposed Action. If the impacts of the alternative for a given environmental impact category are expected to be the same as the Proposed Action, a description of the assessment is provided. Detailed, quantitative analyses of each environmental impact category for each alternative are not presented; rather, the level of analysis provided varies to allow for a sufficient characterization of the relevant relative difference in environmental impacts from the Proposed Project and the Proposed Action. Table 17-1, presented later in this Chapter, provides a summary of the potential environmental impacts of each alternative and the Proposed Project. 17.1. NO ACTION SEQRA requires that the potential environmental impacts of not approving the Proposed Action be compared to the impacts of the Proposed Action. For purposes of this DEIS, the “No Action” alternative would result in the Proposed Zoning not being adopted and the Proposed Project not being implemented. As required by the adopted DEIS Scoping Outline, this alternative considers the existing office building to be fully occupied, which may include rehabilitation and upgrades to the building for purposes of energy efficiency, incorporation of green building practices, and other amenities consistent with current zoning and a modern office building. It is important to note that this alternative does not meet the Applicant’s purpose and need and is not an alternative that the Applicant would pursue. In addition, based on the rental history of the existing office building, including the Applicant’s previous attempts to rent the current building, and the trend of declining demand for stand-alone office buildings in the region, it is the Applicant’s opinion that re-use of the existing office building is not viable. The following sections discuss the potential environmental impacts of this alternative and compare and contrast them with those of the Proposed Action. 17.1.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY 17.1.1.1. Consistency with the PUD Zoning District With this alternative, the Proposed Zoning would not be adopted and the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations would continue to apply to the Project Site. The Project Site would continue to consist of an approximately 215,000-square-foot (sf) office building (see Appendix B-1), a 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-2 DEIS use allowed by the current PUD zoning district. However, the floor area ratio (FAR) of the office building would continue to be approximately 0.28, which is more than twice what is currently allowed by the existing PUD regulations. The office building is a three-story structure, with some parking provided on a portion of the building’s lower level. As shown on the approved building plans (see Appendix B-4), the fascia at the top of the roof of the building rises to elevation of 294.17 feet from a finished grade of 247.67 feet at the southeastern corner of the building and a finished grade of 248.67 feet at the northeast corner of the building. As such, the top of the fascia is 46.5 feet above the finished grade of the building when viewed from Arbor Drive. The roof of the building is approximately 39 feet from ground level, which is greater than permitted in the current PUD, and the fascia extends another 7.5 feet, which is also greater than permitted in the zoning code. The legally existing non-conformities would continue on the Project Site under the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative would be, in the Applicant’s opinion, less consistent with the intent of the PUD district to provide reduced traffic impact to the community (see §250-7E(1)(d) of the Village Zoning Code). The continuation of the office use on the Project Site would result in approximately 263 more AM peak hour trips and 212 more PM peak hour trips than the Proposed Project. While most of the office traffic would be moving in the opposite direction from The Arbors traffic, a sizable number of trips would be expected to move in the same direction as the traffic from The Arbors in the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, in the AM peak hour, the existing office building would be expected to generate 40 outgoing trips and in the PM peak hour, the office building would be expected to generate 51 incoming trips. As shown in Table 17-2, in both peak hours, full occupancy of the existing office building would be anticipated to generate approximately the same number trips moving in the direction of the residential peak as the Proposed Project. In addition, the office building would be expected to generate more traffic throughout the day than the Proposed Project. As shown in the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), (see Appendix F), the existing office building would be expected to generate 227 midday peak hour trips compared to 80 trips for the Proposed Project. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-3 9/12/2018 Table 17-1 Alternatives Impact Comparison Proposed Project No Action (17.1) Residential As-of-Right (17.2 and 17.2A1) Senior Living Facility As-of-Right (17.3) Reduced Density (17.4) Reduced Size (17.5) Proposed Project 62+ (17.6) Land Use, Zoning, Public Policy • Change use of Site from largely vacant 215,000-sf office building and 5.3 acres surface parking lot and driveways to an integrated age-restricted residential community. • Requires amendment to PUD zoning to allow increase in height and density for this Site, restricting the use of the Site to senior living facilities, and decreasing the minimum age for residents of senior living facilities • Consistent with Comprehensive Plan’s general and site-specific recommendations, including encouraging senior living facilities and recommending increases in allowable height. • No Change to PUD Zoning • Legally existing nonconforming structure to remain • Less consistent with Comprehensive Plan o Not responsive to change in market condition o Significantly more traffic that Proposed Action o Would not promote senior living facilities • No Change to PUD zoning • Less consistent with Comprehensive Plan • Would not include senior living facility on-Site • Could generate more impervious surface than Proposed Project • No Change to PUD zoning • Consistent with Comprehensive Plan goal of encouraging senior living facilities • Inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan goal of allowing increased height of senior living facilities • Same uses as Proposed Project; 20 percent fewer units • Would require similar zoning amendment with slightly less allowable density. • Other impacts same as Proposed Project • Same uses as Proposed Project; smaller unit size • Would require similar zoning amendment without an increase in allowable height • Inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan goal of allowing increased height of senior living facilities Would require similar zoning amendment without a change to allowable age in senior living facility. Geology, Soils, Topography • 573,685 sf of site disturbance • Disturbance largely confined to Uf soil type, “Urban Land”, indicative of land that had been previously developed • 1.0 acre of disturbance to steep slope, largely confined to area around existing stormwater basin and human-made steep slope • Blasting not anticipated • No impacts to on-Site geology, soils, topography • 453,417 sf of site disturbance o (483,241 sf for Alternative 17.2A) • Site grading and disturbance of steep slopes similar to Proposed Project • Likely less import of fill than Proposed Project Same as Residential as-of-right • 526,225 sf of site disturbance • Site grading and disturbance of steep slopes similar to Proposed Project • Similar cut/fill as Proposed Project • 498,899 sf of site disturbance • Site grading and disturbance of steep slopes similar to Proposed Project • Similar cut/fill as Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Waters and Wetlands • 2,309 sf increase in impervious surfaces within wetland buffer (largely down gradient of wetlands B and C) • 2.79 acres of impact to wetland buffer during construction, including to the 0.807 acres of existing impervious area within the wetland buffer • No significant impact to wetland hydrology from regrading • Wetland buffer mitigation proposed for increase in impervious coverage in buffer area • No new impacts to wetlands or wetland buffers • Continued on-Site impervious coverage of ~0.807 acres within wetland buffers • No enhanced wetland buffer planting • Similar amounts of disturbance to wetland buffer as Proposed Project Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Stormwater Management • 7.05 acres of impervious coverage • Infiltration practices • Reduced rate and volume of runoff for all modeled storms • Continuation of existing on-Site stormwater practices • No reduction in stormwater rate or volume • No additional stormwater treatment provided • 7.46 acres of impervious coverage • Modern stormwater management system installed to include new stormwater basins along Arbor Drive • 4.92 to 7.06 acres of impervious Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project 6.37 acres of impervious coverage Similar to Proposed Project 6.96 acres of impervious coverage Same as Proposed Project. Vegetation and Wildlife • No significant habitat on-Site • Temporary construction impacts to low-quality habitat • Removal of 134 Village-regulated trees • Landscape program includes 438 new trees and 288 new shrubs • No tree removal or new tree planting • Existing low quality habitat to remain • Similar disturbance as Proposed Project, including similar tree removal Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Visual & Community Character • Proposed uses consistent with surrounding land uses and existing zoning • Existing vegetation obscures most views into Site from north, east, and west • Proposed buildings most visible from Arbor Drive o 2-, 3-, and 4-story buildings with residential-style architecture within landscaped setting that utilizes underground parking to replace view of 215,000 sf office building and 5.3 acres of surface parking and driveways • 128,500 sf of building coverage • 6.64 acres of impervious coverage (0.82 acres less than existing condition) • No change to existing condition o 5.3 acre parking lot and driveways to remain o 3-story, 46-feet tall, architecturally monolithic building to remain o 94,600 sf of building coverage o 7.46 acres of impervious coverage • Visual character would likely be similar to Arbors community. • 80,000 sf of building coverage o (121,000 sf for Alternative 17.2A) Same as Residential as-of-right • Similar to Proposed Project except from vantage points along Arbor Drive • Along Arbor Drive, southern wings of IL/AL building would be 4-stories, but set back further from Arbor Drive and their east-west dimension would be reconfigured. • 115,232 sf of building coverage • Similar visibility from north and west of Site • Views from east of site would be of roof peaks, rather than a 4th floor • From Arbor Drive o Building height is same as Proposed Project o IL/AL building is much longer and contains a 3rd wing in the front, set back approx.. 146 feet from Arbor Drive, as opposed to the 4-story portion of the building in the Proposed Project, which was set back 290 feet. • 144,179 sf of building coverage Same as Proposed Project. Socioeconomic and Fiscal • On-Site population of 462 people plus on-Site staff • Meets increased need for senior housing in community • Generates $1.845 million per year in property taxes; $1.313 more than existing condition • Continued low and declining tax revenue • Not economically sustainable • On-Site population of 273-318 • Increase in assessed value from current condition • Approximately 212 people living on-Site plus staff • Increase in assessed value from current condition • On-Site population of 368 people • 10 to 15 percent fewer employees • Lower assessed value and property taxes than Proposed Project • On-Site population of 455 residents, plus staff • Assessed value slightly less than Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Note: 1 The potential impacts of Alternative 17.2, Residential as of Right, and Alternative 17.2A, Residential as of Right with Greater Gross Floor Area, are presented in one column as the potential impacts of both alternatives are, with two exceptions (i.e., limit of disturbance and building coverage), identical. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-4 DEIS Table 17-1 (cont’d) Alternatives Impact Comparison Proposed Project No Action (17.1) Residential As-of-Right (17.2 and 17.2A1) Senior Living Facility As-of-Right (17.3) Reduced Density (17.4) Reduced Size (17.5) Proposed Project 62+ (17.6) Community Facilities • Increase in Police and EMS demand. o Increased property taxes pay Proposed Project's share of increased police services o Increased insurance recovery pay for increased EMS usage • No adverse impact to Fire Services • Anticipate zero school-age children with Proposed Project; max one or two • Provides sufficient on-Site open space to meet demand of Proposed Project residents • Private carter for solid waste • Little to no increase in demand for Village senior services; amenities provided on-Site • Potential for 1,075 on-Site employees • Fewer EMS calls than Proposed Project • Fewer EMS calls than Proposed Project; similar impacts to Police and Fire services • ~49 public school children living on-Site • District has sufficient capacity o Translates to ~$1.4 million per year based on average per student costs o Average assessed value of 106 townhouses would have to be $707,700 to generate $1.4 million • May provide enough open space on-Site to meet needs; otherwise fee in lieu would be required • Increase in EMS calls from current condition, but potentially less than Proposed Project depending on nature of senior living facility proposed • Slight increase in utilization of Village’s senior services Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project • Likely same as Proposed Project. • Slightly less potential for school-age children to live at Project Site. Infrastructure and Utilities • No significant adverse impacts associated with stormwater • Increase in water/sewer demand less than re-occupancy of existing office building • No significant adverse impact on gas, electric, telephone and communication systems No changes to existing condition 27,500 gpd water/sewer demand Same as Residential as-of-right • 48,550 gpd water/sewer demand Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Traffic and Transportation • 70 AM peak hour trips; 80 Midday peak hour trips; and 90 PM peak hour trips • No significant adverse impact on study area intersections compared to re-occupancy of existing office building • Significantly fewer vehicular trips generated than re-occupancy of existing office building • 333 AM peak hour trips; 227 Midday peak hour trips; and 302 PM peak hour trips • Higher vehicular trips than Proposed Project in AM, PM, and Midday peak hours • 55 AM peak hour trips; 59 Midday peak hour trips; and 63 PM peak hour trips. • Slightly fewer trips than Proposed Project Same as Residential as-of-right • 56 AM peak hour trips; 64 Midday peak hour trips; and 72 PM peak hour trips • Slightly fewer trips than Proposed Project in AM (14), PM (18), and Midday (16) • 67 AM peak hour trips; 77 Midday peak hour trips; and 87 PM peak hour trips. • Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Air Quality • No significant adverse impact from mobile or stationary sources No changes to existing condition Similar to Proposed Project Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Noise • No significant adverse impact from mobile or stationary sources No changes to existing condition Similar to Proposed Project Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Hazardous Materials • No evidence of hazardous, non-hazardous, and/or petroleum-like releases identified in Phase II ESA • Demolition in accordance with all state and federal regulations, including those related to asbestos and lead-based paint No changes to existing condition Similar to Proposed Project Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Construction • 30 month construction timeframe • Would implement Village-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to prevent off-Site stormwater impacts • No significant impact on area intersections from construction traffic • Potential to mitigate overlapping school and construction worker arrival times by granting a 1 hour waiver from Village Noise Code • No significant adverse impacts identified to air quality from mobile or stationary sources during construction; would utilize best practices to reduce fugitive dust and vehicle emissions • No significant adverse noise impact from mobile sources during construction • Potential significant, but temporary, unavoidable adverse noise impacts to the receptors immediately adjacent to the Project Site for portions of the construction period • Interior renovations could require a significant number of construction workers • Façade renovations could generate temporary noise impacts to adjacent receptors • Slightly shorter duration of construction • Significant site work and foundation work would be required; garage excavation would not be required • Construction would generate daily vehicular trips by construction workers and trucks. Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project in terms of duration, sequencing, and impacts • Similar to Proposed Project in terms of duration, sequencing, and impacts. • IL portion of building extends much further west. Same as Proposed Project. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts • Potential significant, but temporary, unavoidable adverse noise impacts to the receptors immediately adjacent to the Project Site for portions of the construction period • Potential overlap of construction worker arrival and MS/HS arrival • Potential overlap of construction worker arrival and MS/HS arrival • Potential significant, but temporary, unavoidable adverse noise impacts to the receptors immediately adjacent to the Project Site for portions of the construction period. • Potential overlap of construction worker arrival and MS/HS arrival Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Irreversible and Irretrievable Resources • Land, energy, building materials • Land, energy, building materials • Land, energy, building materials Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Growth Inducing Impacts • No infrastructure extensions. • Project would serve existing demand; service needs met on-Site • No infrastructure extensions • Workforce would slightly increase demand for goods/services in the Village • No infrastructure extensions • Residents would slightly increase demand for goods/services in the Village Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Cumulative Impacts • Lower cumulative traffic impact than No Action • Greatest potential cumulative traffic impacts of alternatives analyzed • Lower cumulative traffic impact than No Action. Same as Residential as-of-right Similar to Proposed Project Similar to Proposed Project Same as Proposed Project. Note: 1 The potential impacts of Alternative 17.2, Residential as of Right, and Alternative 17.2A, Residential as of Right with Greater Gross Floor Area, are presented in one column as the potential impacts of both alternatives are, with two exceptions (i.e., limit of disturbance and building coverage), identical. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-5 9/12/2018 Table 17-2 Peak Hour Trip Generation AM Peak Hour Trips Leaving Arbor Drive PM Peak Hour Trips Entering Arbor Drive No Action Alternative (i.e., re-occupancy of the existing office building) 40 51 Proposed Project 44 49 Sources: 900 King Street TIS, Maser Consulting, Appendix F. 17.1.1.2. Consistency with the Scenic Road Overlay District The Village of Rye Brook’s (the “Village”) Scenic Road Overlay District (SROD) applies to the Project Site’s King Street frontage. With the No Action alternative, no new construction would be expected on the Project Site and the existing office building would remain on-Site. The SROD requires that “the structure...be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures.” In the Applicant’s opinion, the existing office building is less architecturally compatible with the surrounding structures than the buildings of the Proposed Project. The existing office building is architecturally homogeneous, consisting of a rectangular building form with a concrete façade that is more than 45 feet tall. In contrast, the Proposed Project would feature buildings that do not contain a single long continuous face. Furthermore, the façade materials and roof design for the Proposed Project would be varied to create visual interest and would be in keeping with the residential character of the surrounding area. 17.1.1.3. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan This section analyzes the consistency of the No Action alternative with the relevant general recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and compares it to that of the Proposed Project. For ease of navigation, sections of the Comprehensive Plan are presented in italic text. The primary goal of the Comprehensive plan is to maintain and improve the overall quality of life for village residents by: promoting sustainable development; encouraging a stable and enduring economic base; providing for safety, health and education; preserving the natural, cultural, recreational and historic assets of Rye Brook; Enhancing the design of the built and natural environment; and advocating for smart-growth design principles in the planning process. (pg. 1) Sustainable Development—While the No Action alternative may include rehabilitation and upgrades to the building for purposes of energy efficiency, the building envelope, layout, and core mechanical systems would remain unchanged. In contrast, the Proposed Project would include modern building envelope standards that would be expected to be more energy efficient than the current building’s envelope. In addition, the mechanical systems installed would be expected to be more efficient than the legacy systems of the existing building. Finally, the No Action alternative would not include any changes to the existing stormwater management system. In contrast, the Proposed Project would not only reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the Project Site from the 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-6 DEIS current condition, it would provide enhanced stormwater management to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality. Stable Economic Base—As stated above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the No Action alternative is not economically viable. As shown in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the assessed value of the Project Site has declined over the past several years, resulting in the reduction of property tax payments to the Site’s various taxing jurisdictions. While full occupancy of the office building would be anticipated to increase the assessed value of the Project Site, such an increase, if even feasible, would not likely be stable or sustainable over the long term. In contrast, the Proposed Project would meet an immediate market need and would be anticipated to increase the Site’s assessed value and property tax payments to the various taxing jurisdictions in a sustainable manner. Safety, Health, and Education—This goal is not applicable to the No Action alternative. Preserving the Natural, Cultural, Recreational, and Historic Assets of the Village—The No Action alternative would not include any new Site disturbance. However, the Site would continue to have approximately 0.807 acres of impervious coverage within the 100-foot wetland buffers on the Project Site. The stormwater from the Project Site would continue to receive minimal treatment. With the Proposed Project, the amount of impervious area within the wetland buffers would increase slightly (approximately 2,300 sf), which would be mitigated by newly planted wetland mitigation areas that would enhance the functionality of the existing on-Site wetland buffers. Overall, the Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious area within the Project Site from the existing condition by approximately 0.82 acres. Both the volume and rate of stormwater runoff from the Site would also be reduced with the Proposed Project and a modern stormwater management system, including treatment, would be installed. Enhancing the Design of the Built Environment—The No Action alternative would maintain the design and layout of the Site. The Site would continue to contain 5.3 acres of surface parking and driveways and nearly 600 parking spaces. The existing 430-feet by 220-feet concrete-faced office building would remain on-Site. As stated above, the top of the building’s fascia is approximately 47 feet above grade. In contrast, the Proposed Project would develop the Project Site with three age-restricted residential components that are integrated into a single, coherent site plan. The uses would be served by common parking and circulation and would be tied together with a common landscaping program. The new buildings would be designed to complement each other and to evoke the highest standards of traditional architectural design. The majority of the on-Site parking would be below grade and the surface parking areas would be screened from public views. In the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project would enhance the design of the built environment from the current condition. Smart-Growth Design Principles—This goal is not applicable to the No Action alternative. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-7 9/12/2018 The future of the Village of Rye Brook shall be one that strives to maintain and enhance the quality of life of its residents, businesses, interest groups, and future generations based on a community consensus that establishes and strengthens the village’s distinct identity while working with neighboring communities to achieve desired or shared goals. (p.4) The No Action alternative is, in the Applicant’s opinion, not economically viable. As such, seeking to maintain this use would not enhance the quality of life for Village residents. In contrast, the Proposed Project would enhance the quality of life for Village residents by providing needed senior housing options. Senior citizens already living in the Village who wish to downsize their homes or who need a higher level of care can relocate within their community and remain close to family and friends. In addition, the Proposed Project would redevelop a largely vacant and underperforming office building on the Project Site into a residential community that produces significant tax revenues for the Village and Blind Brook-Rye Union Free School District (BBRUFSD), while placing no additional demands on the BBRUFSD. Goal: Enhance sense of community through changes in the built environment. Policy: Promote a diversity of housing choices for both current and prospective residents (p.4) The No Action alternative seeks to maintain the built environment in an unsustainable fashion. In contrast, the Proposed Project would offer various housing options for seniors needing different levels of care, consistent with this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan continues to encourage developers to utilize affordable housing. 10 percent of new units should be set aside for affordable units (p.127) As required by §209-3F of the Village Code, the Proposed Project would include 19 affordable units (10 percent of all dwelling units), as defined in §250-26.1D of the Village Code. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that any zoning change (including mixed- use) requested by an applicant to sites in Rye Brook that would add value by expanding the permitted uses should include a provision for affordable units in future development or redevelopment. This would balance the benefit received by the property owner with the clear community benefit of achieving more affordable housing. (p.127) The No Action alternative would not provide any affordable housing. As required by §209-3F of the Village Code, the Proposed Project would include 19 affordable units (10 percent of all dwelling units), as defined in §250- 26.1D of the Village Code. Site Specific Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan This section analyzes the consistency of the No Action alternative with the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that deal specifically with the Project Site 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-8 DEIS and compares it to that of the Proposed Action. For ease of navigation, sections of the Comprehensive Plan are presented in italic text. Another multi-tenant corporate campus formerly occupied by IBM, 900 King Street, is located on the eastern edge of Rye Brook near the municipal complex. Built in 1981 on an 18-acre site, the campus contains 201,000 sf of Class A office space, a café, fitness center, and conference center. The building lay vacant for most of the 1990’s until the majority of it was occupied by Snapple in 2004; since Snapple’s departure later that decade, 900 King Street has faced long-term vacancy issues. As of March 2014, the entire second floor of the building, totaling 100,000 sf as well as approximately 32,000 sf on the first floor, was available for lease. (pg. 133) The No Action alternative is, in the Applicant’s opinion, not viable, as recognized by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Further attempts to re-use the office building would not be consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. One office development in Rye Brook is not located in an office zone, but rather a PUD zone (see Section 250-7). The 900 King Street facility was developed through a PUD in the late 1970s/early 1980s in conjunction with the adjacent Arbors residential development. Subsequent to its development, the standards for PUDs were revised several times in the 1990s, and the 900 King Street/Arbors PUD appears to no longer conform. For example, the PUD is located south of the Hutchinson River Parkway, where the code requires that PUDs must be located north of that roadway… Finally, the office building’s FAR is about 0.26 (201,000 total square footage divided by the approximately 773,626 sf of lot area), which is well in excess of the maximum allowable FAR of 0.12. While it is likely that the PUD regulations were revised to provide for tight control of future development, the effect of this nonconformity may be limiting the potential of 900 King Street, possibly contributing to its vacancy issues. (pg. 135-136) The No Action alternative is, in the Applicant’s opinion, not viable, as recognized by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Further attempts to re-use the office building would not be consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. In the future, the Village may also consider opening up selected office zones to carefully specified multifamily development, an approach being explored by other communities. For example, Harrison, faced with significant office vacancies in its Platinum Mile area along I-287, is considering allowing by special permit the development of senior, assisted-care and other housing, as well as complementary retail. Rye Brook may explore a similar strategy for some of its office areas, particularly those that have long-term vacancy issues, such as 900 King Street. (pg. 126) The No Action alternative is, in the Applicant’s opinion, not viable, as recognized by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. Further attempts to re-use the office building would not be consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. In contrast, the Proposed Project responds directly to this section of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically recommends allowing age-restricted Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-9 9/12/2018 and Assisted Living (AL) facilities on the Project Site in recognition that these uses are more economically viable than the Site’s existing office use. Re-Assess the Provisions of the PUD Zone Some development in Rye Brook facilitated by the Village’s PUD zone pre-dates the zone’s current regulations and is thus nonconforming. This is particularly the case with the 900 King Street building, which has faced long-standing problems of vacancy throughout its lifetime. Much of this situation reflects the office market, the constantly shifting needs of corporate users and the particulars of the building itself (notably the fact that much of the building is not subdivided, requiring a large tenant). However, some of the facility’s problems may be due to the fact that it is the only major office building in Rye Brook that is not located in an office zone, and that it does not meet the requirements of the PUD zone within which it is sited. Although the facility is a legal nonconforming use, this results in a lack of predictability and potentially diminished options for significant changes to the property, including expansion or infill development that could allow for a repurposing of the site. While the Village clearly desires to carefully control the type of large-scale development that is contemplated by the PUD zone, the following items should be considered for further study: (pg. 144) • Remove the locational requirement that PUD zones must be north of the Hutchinson River Parkway. While this would open up two significant properties for potential redevelopment (760/800 Westchester Avenue and Westchester Hilton), these sites are not likely to be redeveloped in the near future given their current use and occupancy, and any redevelopment can be controlled through other provisions of the PUD district. This change would help make The Arbors and 900 King Street conform to zoning. (pg. 144) As with the Proposed Action, the No Action alternative would not address this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. • Adjust the FAR requirement for office uses to more closely match modern facilities. The current maximum FAR of 0.12 is highly restrictive; a range of 0.25 to 0.5 may be more appropriate. (pg. 144) The No Action alternative seeks to continue the use of the existing office building, which has an FAR of 0.28. Even with an FAR at the low end of what was recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, the full occupancy of the existing on-Site office building is not likely to be viable. 17.1.2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The No Action alternative would not alter the existing condition of the Site’s geology, soils, or topography. The Site would continue to consist mainly of “Urban Land,” as documented by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The existing, likely human-made steep slope in the middle of the Site would remain. 17.1.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS The No Action alternative would not include any new Site disturbance. However, the Site would continue to have approximately 0.807 acres of impervious coverage within the 100- 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-10 DEIS foot wetland buffers on the Project Site. With the Proposed Project, the amount of impervious area within the wetland buffers would increase slightly (approximately 2,300 sf), which increase would be mitigated by newly planted wetland mitigation areas that would enhance the functionality of the existing on-Site wetland buffers. Overall, the Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious surface on-Site by 0.82 acres. 17.1.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT No new stormwater treatment or stormwater management systems would be installed with the No Action alternative. The runoff from the Project Site would continue to enter the existing stormwater management basin, untreated, and discharge to the stream under Arbor Drive. With the Proposed Project, a modern stormwater management system, including treatment and infiltration, would be installed. With this system, both the rate and volume of runoff from the Project Site would be reduced from the current condition. 17.1.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE There would be no impacts to on-Site vegetation or wildlife with the No Action alternative. As stated in Chapter 7, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” the existing on-Site habitat is of relatively low ecological quality and no known rare, threatened, or endangered species, or species of special concern are located within or adjacent to the Project Site. While the Proposed Project would remove 134 trees with a diameter breast height (dbh) 10 inches or greater, the landscaping plan for the Proposed Project would include 425 new trees and 288 new shrubs. As such, the Proposed Project would result in a greater number of on-Site trees than the No Action alternative. 17.1.6. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER The No Action alternative would not change the existing visual resources on the Project Site or the views of the Project Site from off-Site locations. As described in Chapter 8, “Visual Resources and Community Character,” it is the Applicant’s opinion that the buildings proposed for the Project Site are more in keeping with the residential character of the area around the Project Site and are more architecturally interesting than the existing on-Site building. While the view of the Project Site would change with the Proposed Project, it is the Applicant’s opinion that this change in view does not create an adverse visual impact. 17.1.7. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS As stated above, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the No Action alternative is not viable. As shown in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” the assessed value of the Project Site has declined over the past several years, leading to the reduction of property tax payments to the various taxing jurisdictions. While full occupancy of the office building would be anticipated to increase the assessed value of the Project Site, such an increase, if even possible, would likely not be stable or sustainable over the long term. In contrast, the Proposed Project would meet an immediate market need and would be anticipated to increase the Site’s assessed value and property tax payments to the various taxing jurisdictions in a sustainable manner. 17.1.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The No Action alternative would result in a fully occupied office building that could have approximately 1,075 employees (1 per 200 sf) compared to the approximately 462 residents and up to 60 staff that are expected to live and work at the Project Site with the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, there would be no increase in the number Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-11 9/12/2018 of public school children and no increases in demand for the Village’s senior citizen service programs. The No Action alternative may increase the required staffing level of the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), similar to the Proposed Project. However, as with the Proposed Project, the increase in tax revenue associated with this alternative would be expected to more than cover the increased Village cost. Finally, the No Action alternative would not change the size or height of buildings for which the Rye Brook Fire Department (RBFD) is responsible to protect. While the Proposed Project would result in new construction on the Project Site, this construction would be at a height that is similar to existing Village buildings and would not introduce a construction-type that is not currently served by the RBFD or the Port Chester Fire Department. 17.1.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The No Action alternative would be expected to generate a water and wastewater demand of 19,913 gallons per day (gpd) (see Chapter 11, “Infrastructure and Utilities”). This is approximately 35,622 gpd less than the daily demand anticipated for the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 11, “Infrastructure and Utilities,” the increase in daily water/sewer demand with the Proposed Project from the No Action alternative would not have an adverse impact on the water or wastewater systems. 17.1.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION As detailed in Table 17-3, re-occupancy of the existing office building would be expected to generate significantly more vehicle trips than the Proposed Project in each of the peak hours: 263 more AM peak hour trips; 212 more PM peak hour trips; and, 147 more midday peak hour trips. Table 17-3 Trip Generation Comparison No Action Alternative Proposed Project Difference In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total AM Peak Hour 293 40 333 25 45 70 268 -5 263 Midday Peak Hour 102 125 227 38 42 80 64 83 147 PM Peak Hour 51 251 302 50 40 90 1 211 212 Source: 900 King Street TIS, Maser Consulting, Appendix F. While most of the office traffic would be moving in the opposite direction from The Arbors traffic, a sizable number of trips would be expected to move in the same direction as the traffic from The Arbors community in the AM and PM peak hours. Specifically, in the AM peak hour, the existing office building would be expected to generate 40 outgoing trips and in the PM peak hour, the office building would be expected to generate 51 incoming trips. As shown in Table 17-3 below, in the AM and PM peak hours, full occupancy of the existing office building would be anticipated to generate approximately the same number trips moving in the direction of the residential peak as the Proposed Project. As described in Chapter 12, “Traffic and Transportation,” and Appendix F, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on any study area intersection when compared to the conditions that could occur in the future with the re-occupancy of the existing office building (i.e., the No Action alternative). In fact, certain study area intersections would see a beneficial change to Level of Service (LOS) with the Proposed Project when compared the No Action alternative. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-12 DEIS 17.1.11. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE With the No Action alternative, no new on-Site sources of air or noise emissions would be constructed on the Project Site, therefore no impacts to air quality or noise from stationary sources are anticipated. 17.1.12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The No Action alternative would not disturb sub-surface materials on the Project Site. However, building renovations that take place could disturb potential hazardous materials within the existing building. It would be expected that any renovations to the existing building would include the safety measures described in Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” related to proper handling of building-related hazardous materials. With the implementation of these measures, significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would not be expected to occur as a result of building renovations with the No Action alternative. 17.1.13. CONSTRUCTION Significant Site work and new construction would not be anticipated with the No Action alternative. However, renovations to the existing building could require a significant amount of time and labor. As such, it is likely that construction-related traffic would access the Project Site from Arbor drive over a long period of time. In addition, future renovations could include façade reconstruction, which would result in temporary increased noise levels to surrounding properties. 17.2. RESIDENTIAL (NON-AGE-RESTRICTED) DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS This alternative develops the Project Site with non-age-restricted residential uses in accordance with the existing PUD regulations. The current PUD regulations permit six dwelling units per acre to be constructed, provided that the gsf of floor area does not exceed 9,000 sf per acre. Applied to the Project Site, the existing zoning would allow 106 dwelling units to be constructed with a combined gross floor area of 159,900 sf. The Applicant prepared a hypothetical site plan that illustrates a potential development scenario under the existing PUD regulations (see Figure 17-1). In this scenario, 106 attached townhouses, each with approximately 1,480 sf of gross floor area would be constructed on the Project Site, together with a clubhouse, pool, and gazebo. Assuming the same average number of bedrooms per unit as exists within The Arbors, this alternative would have 250 bedrooms. As such, the Site would be required to have at least 285 parking spaces, pursuant to §250- 6G(1)(c)[3] of the Village Code. Consistent with the experience of The Arbors community that the existing on-Site parking is inadequate for the current use, the hypothetical site plan provides 292 spaces, slightly more parking spaces than required. The Site would be accessed from two two-way driveways connecting to Arbor Drive and space could be provided for an emergency vehicle connection in the northeast corner of the Site to the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD property. The existing on-Site stormwater management basin would be enlarged to the north and two new stormwater management basins would be constructed along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage. Finally, the existing pedestrian path and easement would remain on-Site and would not be disturbed by this alternative, nor would the path be extended to the north. 17.2.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY Development under this alternative would not require a change to the existing PUD zoning and would be consistent with the SROD, and land uses surrounding the Project Site. The Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-13 9/12/2018 number of affordable units provided in accordance with §209-3F of the Village Code would be less with this alternative (11) than with the Proposed Project (19). Development under this alternative would be, in the Applicant’s opinion, less consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan than the Proposed Project. Specifically, the Village’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Village consider senior living facilities for the Project Site. Development under this alternative would not include senior living facilities, whereas the Proposed Project directly responds to, and is consistent with, this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that senior living facilities are economically viable, serve an important market and community need, provide a stable tax base, and are “extremely low” generators of traffic and other potentially adverse community impacts. As shown below, development under this alternative would generate approximately the same number of vehicular trips as the Proposed Project. In addition, the vast majority of these trips with this alternative would be moving in the same direction as the existing peak hour traffic from The Arbors community. 17.2.2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY Development under this alternative would require the disturbance of approximately 453,417 sf of the Project Site, slightly less than the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, development of this alternative would be confined to areas of the Site that have been disturbed by prior development. Construction of this alternative would require extensive site grading, and similar to the Proposed Project, it would require disturbance of the steep slopes associated with the likely human-made rise in topography toward the western portion of the Site. While a detailed grading plan and cut-and-fill analysis was not completed, it is likely that this alternative would not require the importation of soil as the building pad would not have to be as flat as with the Proposed Project. 17.2.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS Development under this alternative could result in similar amounts or slightly less disturbance to the Site’s wetland buffers as the Proposed Project, depending on the footprint of the townhouses. Using the smaller footprint of the townhouses, development under this alternative would avoid almost all impacts to the buffers associated with Wetlands B and C in the north of the Site, with the exception of removing the existing parking lot that encroaches into that buffer and grading that was necessary within the buffer. Impacts to the buffer around Wetland D and Stream S would be similar in this alternative to the Proposed Project. With the larger footprint townhouses (i.e., the footprint of The Arbors townhouses), development under this alternative would create similar, if not slightly more, disturbance within the buffers for Wetlands B and C as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, development under this alternative, with either size townhouse, would not be expected to create a significant adverse impact to the wetlands or wetland buffers. With respect to the buffers for Wetlands B, C, and D, much of this area is currently disturbed and consists of low-quality habitat (e.g., maintained lawn or impervious parking area). In addition, increases in the impervious area within those wetland buffers would be required to be mitigated pursuant to Chapter 245 of the Village Code. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-14 DEIS 17.2.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT A modern stormwater management system would be required with the development of this alternative. Similar to the Proposed Project, State and Village regulations would require that stormwater discharges be reduced from the existing condition and that stormwater treatment systems be installed, including green infrastructure practices. It is likely, however, that the stormwater management system for this alternative would include stormwater detention basins along Arbor Drive because of the limited amount of area needed to place the captured stormwater underground. This is in contrast to the system for the Proposed Project, which would take advantage of the space available to locate required stormwater management underground. 17.2.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Development under this alternative would be anticipated to require similar amounts of Site disturbance as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife on the Project Site as the development would occur on previously disturbed portions of the Site. A similar number of trees would be removed with this alternative as with the Proposed Project because the trees surrounding the eastern entrance drive and the stormwater management basin would be required to be removed with this alternative as well. As with the Proposed Project, a tree planting plan would be required for this alternative to mitigate the removal of Village-regulated trees. 17.2.6. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Development under this alternative would transform the on-Site visual character from one dominated by 5.3 acres of surface parking lot and driveways and a three-story rectangular office building to a townhouse community with internal Site driveways and clusters of attached two-story townhouses. The Site could look similar to The Arbors townhouse community immediately to the west. In general, the views into the Project Site with this alternative would be similar to that of the Proposed Project for the vantage points looking into the western portion of the Site. As with the Proposed Project, the western portion of the Project Site in this alternative would be developed with two-story townhouses. Specifically, the view into the Project Site with this alternative from vantage points 1, 6, 8, 8a, and 8b would be substantially similar to the view of the Proposed Project. The view would be of two-story townhouses through vegetation during the leaf-off condition. During the leaf-on condition, the townhouses would be obscured from view. Views looking into the center and eastern portion of the Site would be of two-story townhouses with this alternative, as opposed to a three- and four-story Independent Living (IL) and AL building with the Proposed Project. From vantage points 2, 3, 7, 9a, and 9b, the townhouses would be plainly visible during the leaf-off condition and largely obscured during the leaf-on condition. This visibility is similar to that of the Proposed Project, except several two-story buildings would be visible instead of a three- and four-story building. From vantage point 5, the peak of the townhouse roofs would likely be visible during the leaf-off condition and obscured during the leaf-on condition. This would be a slight change from the view with the Proposed Project where the third story of the IL building would be visible during the leaf-off condition. Finally, the view from vantage points 4a and 4b would be of two-story townhouses, internal site circulation roads, site Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-15 9/12/2018 landscaping, and stormwater management basins. It would be expected that this view would be largely similar to the view of The Arbors townhouses. With regard to building coverage this alternative would have approximately 80,000 sf of building coverage compared to the approximately 94,600 sf of building coverage under the existing condition, and approximately 128,500 sf with the Proposed Project. 17.2.7. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS The 106 units on the Project Site would be anticipated to have a population of between 273 and 318 people, as shown in Table 17-4, below. This compares to the estimated 462 residents anticipated to live on the Project Site with the Proposed Project. The impact to community services from this additional population is analyzed in Section 17.2.8, below. Table 17-4 Residential As-of-Right Population Housing Tenure Average Household Size1 Anticipated Population of 106 Units Renter-Occupied 3.00 318 Owner-Occupied 2.58 273 Combined 2.63 279 Sources: 1 Average household size is from the 2010 Census for Census Block 1003 within Census Tract 82.02, which includes the majority of The Arbors and portions of the Meadowlark and Rock Ridge neighborhood. The assessed value of the Project Site with this alternative would be dependent on a number of factors, including the size of the units, the construction type and interior finishes, and whether the units are for-sale or for-rent. As with the Proposed Project, the assessed value of the Project Site with this alternative would be anticipated to increase from its current level, increasing the amount of property tax revenue available to the various taxing jurisdictions from the current condition. 17.2.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Development of the Project Site with 106 townhouses would require some level of increased police services, as the RBPD stated would be necessary for other similar developments in the Village. As with the Proposed Project, the portion of the extra costs associated with providing police services to this alternative would be expected to be offset by increases in property tax revenue to the Village. This alternative would likely result in fewer Emergency Medical Service (EMS) calls than the Proposed Project owing to the nature of the use. Finally, as with the Proposed Project, development with this alternative would not introduce new building or construction types to the Village and would therefore not be expected to have an adverse impact to the provision of fire protection services. Development of this alternative would be anticipated to result in approximately 49 children that would attend the Blind Brook Public Schools, which is equal to a 3.4 percent increase in enrollment from 2017–2018 levels. The number of students was estimated based on the number of public school students that live within The Arbors community, 116 in the 2017–2018 school year, as report by the BBRUFSD (see Appendix E-3). This increase in the number of students in the BBRUFSD would not be expected to create an adverse impact with respect to the overall capacity of the district as the district is operating at approximately 7.3 percent below its peak enrollment of 1,555 students in the 2007–2008 school year. Based 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-16 DEIS on the total annual expenditure per pupil within the BBRUFSD of $28,601,1 an increase of 49 students would be anticipated to cost the school district approximately $1.4 million per year. Using the 2017 BBRUFSD property tax rate of $23.410938 per $1,000 of assessed value, the total assessed value of the Project Site would have to increase by approximately $59.86 million to result in an increase in property tax payments of $1.4 million to the school district. Such an increase would require that the average assessed value of each of the 106 townhouses to be $707,770. For comparison, the townhouses within The Arbors community have assessed values of between $394,100 and $764,300, with only two townhouses that have assessed values of more than $700,000, both of which are four-bedroom units with more than 3,300 gsf of floor area. Based on the estimated population of the Project Site with this alternative (i.e., 273 to 318 people), a total of 0.89 to 1.03 acres of parks and open space would be required (see Table 17-5). As with the Proposed Project, some of the space on the Project Site along the far western side and the linear walking path on the eastern side of the Site would be available to partially meet this need (see Figure 10-4). Additional space within the central portion of the Project Site may also be available to serve as open and recreational space. In the event that sufficient land for open space and recreational areas could not be located on the Project Site, development under this alternative would be required to pay a fee-in-lieu to the Village, pursuant to §209-15 of the Village Code. Table 17-5 New York State Recommended Available Open Space for As-of-Right Residential Development Facility Type Approx. Size in Acres Acres per 1,000 Population Acres Needed for Incoming Population Pocket Park 0.25–0.5 0.25 0.07–0.08 Play Lot 1–2 2 0.55–0.64 Neighborhood Park 4–7 1 0.27–0.32 Total — — 0.89–1.03 Source: New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) Using the same methodology and solid waste generation rates that were used in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” the 106 townhouses in this alternative would be anticipated to generate 4,346 pounds per week of solid waste, or 113.3 tons per year. As with the Proposed Project, handling of this amount of solid waste is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact on the solid waste collection, transfer, or disposal systems that serve the Project Site. Solid waste generated with this alternative could be collected by a private carter, or by the Village’s contracted carter. It is likely that some proportion of the Site population with this alternative would make use of the Village’s senior services. This marginal increase in services would not be anticipated to create a significant adverse impact to the Village’s senior service programs. 17.2.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES This alternative would have a daily water and sewer demand of 27,500 gpd; equal to 110 gpd per bedroom. As with the Proposed Project, new on-Site water and sanitary sewer 1 2017–2018 BBRUFSD Adopted Budget Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-17 9/12/2018 lines would be required and would be expected to connect to the existing water and sewer lines in the same general area as with the Proposed Project. 17.2.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION This alternative is anticipated to generate 55 AM peak hour trips (10 in/45 out), 59 Midday peak hour trips (26 in/33 out), and 63 PM peak hour trips (42 in/21 out). This is 15 to 27 fewer peak hour trips than the Propose Project and significantly less than the number of vehicular trips generated in the No Action alternative. As the number of trips generated by this alternative is similar to, and slightly less than, the number of trips generated by the Proposed Project, this alternative would similarly not have a significant adverse impact on traffic and transportation. 17.2.11. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE As the number of vehicular trips generated by this alternative is similar to, and slightly less than, the number of trips generated by the Proposed Project, this alternative would similarly not have a significant adverse impact on air quality or noise from mobile sources. 17.2.12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Development of this alternative would require similar levels of disturbance to the Project Site as the Proposed Project, including removal of the existing building and site grading. Therefore, the potential for impacts to or from hazardous materials would be the same with this alternative as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, with the implementation of the recommendations described in Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” with respect to the proper handling of potentially hazardous materials, there would not be a significant adverse impact related to hazardous materials with this alternative. 17.2.13. CONSTRUCTION Construction of this alternative would be expected to take approximately 24 months, 6 months less than the Proposed Project. The slightly shorter duration is due to the increased ability to use panelized or modular construction. The existing building and parking area would be required to be demolished, and the site would have to be regraded to reduce the abrupt change in elevation in the western portion of the Site. New on-Site roads would have to be constructed and new water, sewer, gas, and electric infrastructure would have to be installed. This alternative would require the construction of foundations for the 106 townhouses, a gazebo, and a clubhouse, followed by vertical construction of the townhouses. As the building coverage and internal road system would be similar in size to those of the Proposed Project, it is reasonable to assume that the foundation construction, road, and utility construction, construction periods that generate a significant amount of noise, would be a similar length to that of the Proposed Project and could cause similar levels of impacts to off-Site receptors. However, this alternative would not require excavation for an underground parking garage, as is included in the Proposed Project. Eliminating this construction element, which is noise intensive, contributes to the shorter construction schedule and would reduce the duration of the maximum off-Site noise levels during the construction period. Construction of this alternative would require daily on-Site construction activities, including vehicular trips associated with construction workers and truck deliveries. The impacts of those trips would be expected to be similar in nature and magnitude to those of the Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-18 DEIS 17.2A. RESIDENTIAL (NON-AGE-RESTRICTED) DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS WITH GREATER GROSS FLOOR AREA This alternative develops the Project Site with non-age-restricted residential uses in accordance with the existing PUD regulations, but for the maximum gsf of floor area requirement. In this alternative, a site plan was developed that constructs 106 townhouses (i.e., six per acre) but the townhouses were laid out using the footprint of The Arbors townhouses (see Figure 17-2). While the number of townhouses would still meet the PUD regulations (i.e., six per acre), the gsf of development per acre would exceed the permitted 9,000 sf of the PUD. Consistent with the average gsf of the townhouses at The Arbors (2,290 gsf), the 106 townhouses in this scenario would result in 242,740 gsf being developed on the Project Site, exclusive of the clubhouse and gazebo. The Applicant contends that this hypothetical site plan, while it has 65 percent more floor area than permitted by the PUD, is consistent with the precedent of residential construction within the PUD. The potential environmental impacts of this alternative would be similar in most respects to the previous alternative. The main difference in impacts would be in terms of the limit of disturbance during construction and the final building coverage: this alternative would require approximately 483,241 sf of disturbance, compared to 453,417 sf with the previous alternative and would result in approximately 121,000 sf of building coverage as compared to 80,000 sf. 17.3. SENIOR LIVING FACILITY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE EXISTING PUD REGULATIONS This alternative develops the Project Site with IL units in accordance with the existing PUD regulations. As stated above, the current PUD regulations permit six dwelling units per acre with a maximum gsf of 9,000 sf per acre. As such, the only difference between this alternative and the non-age-restricted as-of-right alternative is that the units in this alternative would be restricted to residents aged at least 62 years. As with the non-age-restricted alternative, a number of zoning compliant site plans could be developed for this alternative. In order to highlight the salient difference in impacts related to the programmatic differences between this alternative, the Proposed Project, and the as-of-right non-age-restricted alternative, the Applicant assumed that one of the hypothetical site plans developed for the non-age-restricted alternative described in Section 17.2 above would be developed with this alternative. The only difference is that in this alternative, the townhouses would be restricted to residents that are at least 62 years of age. In this way, the analysis and comparison of impacts relates directly to the programmatic differences in the alternatives and not to differences related to hypothetical site plans, of which there could be many that are zoning compliant. As such, the impacts of this alternative on the physical environment are assumed to be identical to those of the non-age-restricted as-of-right alternative. Therefore, only impacts to non-physical environmental categories are discussed below. 17.3.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY Development of this alternative would have the same impacts to land use and zoning as the previous alternative. With respect to the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, this alternative would be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of reusing the Project Site for senior living facilities than the non-age-restricted as-of-right alternative. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-19 9/12/2018 17.3.2. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER The visual character of the Project Site with this alternative and the views into the Project Site from the previously analyzed vantage points would be the same with this alternative as the previous alternative. 17.3.3. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS It is anticipated that this alternative would generate a slightly lower on-Site population than the previous alternative. Using the same assumptions regarding the population of the townhouses and IL units as was used in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts,” this alternative would be expected to generate a population of 212 persons. The assessed value of the Project Site with this alternative would be dependent on a number of factors, including the size of the units, the construction type, interior finishes, and the sale or leasing business model utilized. As with the Proposed Project, the assessed value of the Project Site with this alternative would be anticipated to increase from its current level, increasing the amount of property tax revenue available to the various taxing jurisdictions. 17.3.4. COMMUNITY FACILITIES Development of the Project Site with 106 IL units would require some level of increased police services, as the RBPD stated would be necessary for other similar developments in the Village. As with the Proposed Project, the portion of the extra costs associated with providing police services to this alternative would be expected to be offset by increases in property tax revenue to the Village. This alternative would likely result in fewer EMS calls than the Proposed Project owing to the absence of the AL use. However, if an AL use, which is zoning compliant with the current PUD regulations, were constructed, the demands of the EMS services would be expected to be similar to that of the Proposed Project. Finally, as with the Proposed Project, development with this alternative would not introduce new building or construction types to the Village and would therefore not be expected to have an adverse impact to the provision of fire protection services. No children attending public school would be expected to live at the Project Site with this alternative. It is likely that some proportion of the Site population with this alternative would make use of the Village’s senior services as the Site may not contain enhanced on- Site amenities as are included with the Proposed Project. This marginal increase in services would not be anticipated to create a significant adverse impact to the Village’s senior service programs. With respect to the provision of adequate parks and recreation space on the Project Site, it is likely that with this alternative, sufficient on-Site recreational space could be located on-Site to meet the demands of the new population. In the event that sufficient land for open space and recreational areas could not be located on the Project Site, development under this alternative would be required to pay a fee-in-lieu to the Village, pursuant to §209-15 of the Village Code. 17.4. REDUCED DENSITY PROPOSED PROJECT This alternative develops the Project Site with a senior living facility at a density greater than permitted by the current PUD zoning, but less than the Proposed Project. To illustrate the potential differences in environmental impacts associated with the change in program, the Applicant assumed 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-20 DEIS a 20 percent reduction in unit count for each component of the Proposed Project (see Table 17-6). The size of the units and the unit composition (e.g., percentage of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three- bedroom units) was held constant. As such, the gsf of development in this alternative would be 397,500 sf, which is approximately 12 percent less than the Proposed Project. Table 17-6 Reduced Density Alternative Program Project Component Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units Total Bedrooms 1-bedroom Unit 2-bedroom Unit 3-bedroom Unit Town Homes 30,990 182 36 0 18 -- Assisted Living 81,080 683 76 61 7 — Independent Living 285,430 1282 275 35 77 16 Total 397,500 214 287 96 102 16 Notes: 1 Gross Floor Area calculated pursuant to §250-2 of the Village Code. 2 Dwelling Units 3 Not dwelling units, in Applicant’s opinion. The Site layout with this alternative, including the building location and Site circulation, would remain largely similar to the Proposed Project (see Figure 17-3). The IL and AL building would be in the center of the Site, with the townhouses located to the west. The majority of parking would be under the rear portion of the IL building, with the balance of the parking provided to the north and east of the AL building, as well as within the townhouse clusters, resulting in a total of 267 parking space. The front-facing wings of the IL structure (facing Arbor Drive), were reduced in length and width from the Proposed Project. As a result, the southeast-most wing of the IL building would be approximately 155 feet from Arbor Drive, approximately 39 feet further than with the Proposed Project. The AL building and the central wing of the IL building in the rear were also reduced in length. In order to reduce the footprint of the proposed IL and AL building to the maximum extent practicable, the front wings of the IL building in this alternative are four stories, as opposed to three with the Proposed Project. 17.4.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY The Reduced Density alternative would be similarly consistent with land use, zoning, and public policy of the Village as described for the Proposed Project in Chapter 3, “Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy.” 17.4.2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The limit of disturbance for this alternative would be approximately 526,225 sf; approximately 1 acre less than the Proposed Project. The Site would be graded in much the same way as the Proposed Project, which would allow for a level building pad and the creation of underground parking. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to have a similar amount of cut and fill as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, development of this alternative would confine that disturbance to areas of the Site that have been disturbed by prior development. Construction of this alternative would require disturbance of the steep slopes associated with the likely human-made rise in topography toward the western portion of the Site. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-21 9/12/2018 17.4.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS This alternative would result in a similar amount of disturbance to the Site’s wetland buffer areas as the Proposed Project. As such, a similar amount of wetland buffer mitigation would be required. 17.4.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Reduced Density alternative would have a slightly less impervious coverage than the Proposed Project: 277,605 sf compared to 289,442 sf. The post-construction drainage divides would be anticipated to be similar to that of the Proposed Project. As such, the stormwater management system for this alternative would be anticipated to be similar in nature and extent to the Proposed Project. 17.4.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Development under this alternative would be anticipated to require similar amounts of Site disturbance as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife on the Project Site as the development would occur on previously disturbed portions of the Site. A similar number of trees would be removed with this alternative as with the Proposed Project and a tree planting plan, similar in scope to that of the Proposed Project, would be required for this alternative to mitigate the removal of Village-regulated trees. 17.4.6. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Development of this alternative would result in similar changes to the on-Site visual character and visibility from off-Site vantage points as with the Proposed Project. The slight reduction in the length of two of the rear wings of the IL and AL building from the Proposed Project would be nearly imperceptible from locations to the north of the Site, as represented by vantage points 6, 9a, and 9b. From the east and west of the Project Site, the view of this alternative would be identical to that of the Proposed Project. From vantage point 2, along King Street, the slight reduction in the length of the IL building’s “front” wings from the Proposed Project would be barely noticeable in the leaf-off condition. In the leaf-on condition, the proposed building would not be visible. From vantage point 3, at the eastern end of Arbor Drive, the reduction in the length of the southeast-most wing of the IL building would be noticeable in the leaf-off condition, but, in the Applicant’s opinion, would not result in a view that was significantly different from that of the Proposed Project. While this wing would be four stories in this alternative, the combination of the increased setback from Arbor Drive and the reconfiguration in the front wing’s shape would create a view that is very similar to that of the Proposed Project. In the leaf-on condition, the change in view from this vantage point would not be noticeable. The change in the length of the southwest-most wing of the IL building would be barely noticeable in the leaf-on condition, owing to its distance from the vantage point, and would not be visible in the leaf-on condition. From vantage points 4a and 4b, immediately south of the Project Site, the change in the length and shape of the southern wings of the IL building from that of the Proposed Project would be noticeable, but, in the Applicant’s opinion, not significantly different from the Proposed Project. The southern wings in this alternative would be set back further from Arbor Drive and reconfigured in shape so as to reduce the east-west dimension of the southern portion of these wings. As such, the increase in height, from three stories to four stories, of this section of the IL and AL building would not be perceived as a significant increase in the building’s massing. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-22 DEIS With respect to building coverage, this alternative would have slightly less building coverage than the Proposed Project: 115,232 sf as compared to 128,500 sf. In the Applicant’s opinion, this slight difference in coverage would not create a meaningful difference in the character of the Project Site between these two scenarios: both would result in an increase in building coverage and a decrease in impervious coverage from the existing condition. 17.4.7. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS This alternative would be expected to have a population of approximately 368 people,2 a 20 percent reduction from the population expected with the Proposed Project. The number of staff required to serve this population would be reduced from that with the Proposed Project; however, given the economies of scale inherent in the operation of these facilities, a reduction in staff of 10 to 15 percent may be achieved. The assessed value of the Project Site with this alternative would likely be approximately 20 percent lower than with the Proposed Project as the assessed value is highly dependent on the operating revenue and costs of the Proposed Project. Similarly, the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site would also be approximately 20 percent less than the Proposed Project, or approximately $369,174 less per year (see Table 17-7). Table 17-7 Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Reduced Density Alternative Jurisdiction Existing Condition Taxes Projected Taxes with Proposed Project Projected Taxes with Reduced Density Alternative Difference in Taxes from Proposed Project Village $114,043 $395,403 $316,322 ($79,081) BBRUFSD $354,676 $1,229,706 $983,765 ($245,941) County $49,389 $171,237 $136,990 ($34,247) Town $713 $2,473 $1,978 ($495) Blind Brook Sewer $9,236 $32,023 $25,618 ($6,405) Solid Waste $4,334 $15,027 $12,022 ($3,005) Total $532,391 $1,845,869 $1,476,695 ($369,174) Notes: Existing Condition and Proposed Project taxes taken from Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts.” Reduced Density Alternative taxes are assumed to be 20 percent lower than Proposed Project. 17.4.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Reduced Density alternative would be expected to have similar impacts to community facilities as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would likely result in an increase demand on emergency services, including EMS and police services. Given the same building type and height of this alternative to the Proposed Project, impacts to the provision of fire protection services would be the same as the Proposed Project. Similarly, the increase in tax revenue with this alternative would be anticipated to cover the increased costs to municipal operations; however, given the lower amounts of property tax revenue projected to be generated with this alternative, the net “increase” in property tax dollars to each taxing jurisdiction would be smaller with this alternative than the Proposed Project. 2 Population estimated using the same methodology as the Proposed Project, as detailed in Chapter 9, “Socioeconomic and Fiscal Impacts”; two residents assumed for each IL and townhouse unit and one resident assumed per bed for the AL. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-23 9/12/2018 As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density alternative would not be anticipated to have an impact on the BBRUFSD, the Village’s senior citizen programs, or the solid waste collection, transfer, and disposal systems. Given the smaller population of this alternative than the Proposed Project, the amount of parks and open space required for this alternative would be less than the Proposed Project. However, since the Proposed Project was shown, in the Applicant’s opinion, to have sufficient on-Site space to serve the needs of its anticipated population (see Chapter 10, “Community Facilities”), there would be no change in impacts associated to open space and recreation areas and, as with the Proposed Project, there would be no need to remit a fee-in-lieu to the Village. 17.4.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The Reduced Density alternative would have a daily water and sewer demand of 48,550 gpd; or, approximately 12.5 percent less than the demand of the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, new on-Site water and sanitary sewer lines would be required and would be expected to connect to the existing water and sewer lines in the same general area as with the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the impacts of the water and sewer demand of the Reduced Density alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on the water or sanitary sewer systems. 17.4.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION The Reduced Density alternative would generate 14 fewer AM peak hour trips, 16 fewer midday peak hour trips, and 18 fewer PM peak hour trips than the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on the traffic and transportation systems. 17.4.11. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE As the number of vehicular trips generated by this alternative is slightly less than those generated by the Proposed Project, this alternative would similarly not have a significant adverse impact on air quality or noise from mobile sources. As described in Chapters 13, “Air Quality,” and 14, “Noise,” the mechanical and HVAC systems of the Proposed Project’s buildings would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality of noise. Given that the Reduced Density alternative has the same building configuration and layout as, and slightly smaller size than, the Proposed Project, the mechanical and HVAC systems of this alternative would also not be expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality or noise. 17.4.12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Development of this alternative would require similar levels of disturbance to the Project Site, including removal of the existing building and site grading, as the Proposed Project. Therefore, the potential for impacts to or from hazardous materials would be the same with this alternative as the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, with the implementation of the recommendations in Chapter 15, “Hazardous Materials,” with respect to the proper handling of potentially hazardous materials, there would not be a significant adverse impact related to hazardous materials with this alternative. 17.4.13. CONSTRUCTION Construction of the Reduced Density alternative would be anticipated to take approximately the same amount of time as the construction of the Proposed Project. The time associated with foundations, vertical construction, and interior finishing may be 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-24 DEIS slightly reduced from that of the Proposed Project, but not significantly. Similarly, the sequence and phases of construction would be the same as the Proposed Project. As such, the potential for temporary construction-period impacts from construction of this alternative would be anticipated to be similar to that of the Proposed Project. 17.5. REDUCED SIZE PROPOSED PROJECT This alternative redevelops the Project Site with a senior living facility at the same density as the Proposed Project, but with smaller building and unit sizes and no increase in the permitted height of the proposed buildings (i.e., 35-feet maximum building height). The program for this alternative is largely similar to the Proposed Project (see Table 17-8), with the following exceptions: • The number of townhouses was reduced from 24 to 20, given the larger footprint of the IL and AL building required; • The number of one-bedroom units in the IL building increased, while the number of two-bedroom units decreased; and, • The average unit size of the IL3 and townhouse units was reduced, with emphasis on reducing the size of the largest units. Table 17-8 Reduced Size Alternative Program Project Component Gross Floor Area (sf)1 Number of Units Total Bedrooms 1-bedroom Unit 2-bedroom Unit 3-bedroom Unit Town Homes 34,820 202 40 0 20 -- Assisted Living 89,500 853 94 76 9 -- Independent Living 276,330 1602 282 60 78 22 Total 400,650 265 416 136 107 22 Notes: 1 Gross Floor Area (GFA) calculated pursuant to §250-2 of the Village Code. 2 Dwelling units. 3 Not dwelling units, in Applicant’s opinion. The overall GFA of this alternative is 400,650 sf. This is a reduction of 44,350 sf, or 10.0 percent, from the Proposed Project. To accomplish this change, several changes were made to the individual project components. The size of the proposed townhouse units was reduced from 2,083 sf in the Proposed Project to 1,781 sf in this alternative; a 14.5 percent reduction in the size. Taken together with the reduction in the number of units, the townhouse program was reduced by 15,180 sf, or 30 percent. The AL facility program was not substantially reduced in size with this alternative. It is the Applicant’s opinion that the unit sizes of the AL units, as well as the amount of back-of-house and common/amenity space included for the number of AL units proposed, cannot be substantially reduced while still meeting the operational needs of an AL operator within the Proposed Project. Tending to offset the reduction in size of the AL units in this alternative is the increased inefficiency of the AL building as compared to the Proposed Project. These building inefficiencies, including additional hallways, are a direct result of the lower building height of the AL building in this alternative. As such, the total GFA of the AL building in this alternative was only reduced by 500 sf from the Proposed Project. 3 Figure 17-5 illustrates a typical floor plan for the IL building in this alternative, with the footprint of the proposed IL building shaded underneath for comparison. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-25 9/12/2018 The IL facility was reduced in size by 28,670 sf, or 9.4 percent, from the Proposed Project. This reduction in size was driven by a reduction in the size of the individual IL units. The amount of space devoted to individual units was reduced from 195,060 sf in the Proposed Project to 174,220 sf with this alternative—a reduction of 10.7 percent. The average unit size was reduced 130 sf; from 1,219 sf with the Proposed Project to 1,089 sf in this alternative. As part of the building re-configuration, the Applicant reduced the number of different room types from ten in the Proposed Project to four in this alternative. At the same time, the configuration of individual units (e.g., number of bedrooms or baths) of a similar unit size was modified. As stated above, the Applicant focused on reducing the size of the largest units included in the Proposed Project because reducing the size of the smallest units in the IL building would not meet the Applicant’s programming objectives for the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Applicant made substantial reductions in the size of this alternative’s largest units. With this alternative, the largest unit size is proposed to be 1,450 sf and there are 22 units of that size in this alternative. In contrast, the largest unit size in the Proposed Project is 1,800 sf. In the Proposed Project there are 36 units that are larger than the largest unit included in the Reduced Size alternative. At the same time, 47 of the smallest units in the Proposed Project were not reduced in size. Specifically, the Applicant did not reduce the size of the units proposed to be 900 sf (i.e., they remain 900 sf in this alternative). The Applicant also kept four of the units proposed to be 1,040 sf in the Proposed Project the same size in this alternative; however, 17 of the units that were proposed to be 1,040 sf in the Proposed Project were reduced in size to 900 sf in this alternative. All other units were reduced in size. The Applicant believes that the 9.4 percent reduction in the GFA of the IL building in this alternative illustrates the potential differences in impacts of a smaller building size as compared to the Proposed Project. With this alternative, the general location of the uses within the Site is similar to the Proposed Project. However, the building configuration was modified to maintain the same number of units in a three-story building (see Figure 17-4). The IL portion of the main Site building was “stretched” in an east-west direction and a third wing was added to the front of the building in the previous location of the entry drive and porte cochere, similar to the Proposed Project. The front of the IL and AL building would be three stories and would be setback approximately 115 feet from Arbor Drive, similar to the Proposed Project, and the AL portion of the main building was modified by providing an extra wing in the rear to make up for the reduced height. A loop road around the Site would still be provided and much of the parking would be located under the IL and AL building. Half of the landscaped island in between the two proposed driveways would be converted to a stormwater management basin because the increase in impervious surface coverage resulting from the increased building footprint in this alternative would result in increased runoff and would require additional stormwater treatment. This building configuration is extremely inefficient from an operational perspective. The spread out nature of the building’s rooms require longer interior travel distances for residents and spread out the common and amenity spaces a larger area. With such a building configuration, it is likely that additional staff would be required to serve the resident population, especially in the AL facility. 17.5.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Size alternative would require an amendment to the Village’s PUD zoning regulations. The amendment would be similar in all respects to the Proposed Zoning, except that the zoning change in this alternative would not require an increase in permitted height from three to four stories. The consistency of this alternative to the Village’s Comprehensive Plan would be almost identical to that of the Proposed Project. The two main differences would be: 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-26 DEIS • The Reduced Size alternative would result in an increase in building coverage and impervious Site coverage as compared to the Proposed Project. In the Applicant’s opinion, this is less consistent with the Plan’s goals of creating sustainable development and preserving natural resources. In the Applicant’s opinion, the building design is also less aesthetically pleasing than that of the Proposed Project, which is less consistent with the Plan’s goal of enhancing the design of the built environment. • The Reduced Size alternative is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s recommendation to, “Allow assisted-living or senior congregate-care facilities to be a maximum of four stories or 45 feet in height, as consistent with typical facilities of this type.”4 17.5.2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY The limit of disturbance for this alternative would be approximately 498,899 sf—slightly less than the Proposed Project. The Site would be graded in much the same way as the Proposed Project, which would allow for a level building pad and the creation of underground parking. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to have a similar amount of cut and fill. As with the Proposed Project, development of this alternative would confine that disturbance to areas of the Site that have been disturbed by prior development. Construction of this alternative would require disturbance of the steep slopes associated with the likely human-made rise in topography toward the western portion of the Site. 17.5.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS This alternative would result in a similar amount of disturbance to the Site’s wetland buffer areas as the Proposed Project. More grading within the northeast corner of the buffer around Wetland A may be required for this alternative, given the fact that the western extent of the IL and AL building and townhouses were shifted west. 17.5.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Reduced Size alternative would have a slightly more impervious coverage than the Proposed Project: 303,197 sf compared to 289,442 sf. The post-construction drainage divides would be anticipated to be similar to that of the Proposed Project, with the exception that a slightly larger portion of the Site that currently drains toward Wetland A would be diverted to the east than with the Proposed Project. As such, while the stormwater management system for this alternative would be anticipated to be similar in nature to that of the Proposed Project, an additional stormwater management basin would be located within the front, landscaped island along Arbor Drive. 17.5.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Development under this alternative would be anticipated to require similar amounts of Site disturbance as the Proposed Project. This alternative would not result in significant adverse impacts to vegetation and wildlife on the Project Site as the development would occur on previously disturbed portions of the Site. A similar number of trees would be removed with this alternative as with the Proposed Project and a tree planting plan, similar in scope to the one for the Proposed Project, would be required for this alternative to mitigate the removal of Village-regulated trees. 4 Village Comprehensive Plan, page 145. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-27 9/12/2018 17.5.6. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER Development of this alternative would result in similar changes to the on-Site visual character and visibility from off-Site vantage points as with the Proposed Project. The reduction in the maximum height of the IL and AL building would be most evident from the north of the Site during the leaf-off condition, as represented by the vantage points 9a and 9b along the Hutchinson River Parkway and Vantage Point 6, along North Ridge Street. During the leaf-on condition, the proposed buildings would be barely visible. From the west of the Project Site, the view of this alternative from The Arbors (vantage points 1, 8, 8a, and 8b) would be identical to that of the Proposed Project; the top of the two-story townhouses would be visible in the leaf-off condition. From the east of the Project Site—vantage point 5 along King Street and vantage point 7 within the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD parking lot—the view with this alternative would be slightly different from the Proposed Project. In this alternative, the view from King Street during the leaf-off condition would be of the roof peaks of the proposed IL and AL building, rather than the top story of the building with the Proposed Project. During the leaf-on condition, the buildings would not be visible from this vantage point, similar to the Proposed Project. From vantage point 7, within the Village Hall, RBPD, and RBFD parking lot, the majority of the view would be the same with this alternative, with the exception that the four-story portion of the building visible in the far-right of the view with the Proposed Project would be three stories in this alternative. The view of this alternative from vantage points 2 and 3, southeast of the Project Site, would be largely similar to the Proposed Project. The addition of the center “wing” of the IL portion of the main building would be visible from vantage point 3. The difference in the visibility of the on-Site buildings with this alternative as compared to the Proposed Project would be most noticeable from vantage points 4a and 4b on Arbor Drive. From vantage point 4a, the proposed center wing of the IL building would be approximately 144 feet closer than the four-story portion of the building with the Proposed Project. While this wing would be three stories, as opposed to four, the significant reduction in distance from this vantage point would make the front of this building appear much taller than the four-story portion of the IL building in the Proposed Project, which was set back 290 feet from Arbor Drive. Similarly, from vantage point 4b, the reduction in setback of the center of the IL portion of the building would make the three-story center wing of the building with this alternative appear much larger than the four-story portion of the building with the Proposed Project. With respect to building coverage, this alternative would have more building coverage than the Proposed Project—144,179 sf as compared to 128,500 sf with the Proposed Project. Therefore, while the total gsf of built space would be less than the Proposed Project, the buildings would take up a larger portion of the Site. In addition, the total amount of impervious coverage would be greater with this alternative than with the Proposed Project. 17.5.7. SOCIOECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS Approximately 455 residents would be anticipated to live on-Site with this alternative: eight fewer than with the Proposed Project, owing to the reduction of four townhouse units. The number of staff required to serve this alternative would be anticipated to be slightly higher than with the Proposed Project, owing the inefficiencies of the building design when compared to the Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment 9/12/2018 17-28 DEIS The assessed value of the Project Site with this alternative would be anticipated to be slightly less that of the Proposed Project owing to the decrease in the number of townhouse units and the increase in staff and operating costs associated with the decrease in building efficiency compared to the Proposed Project. 17.5.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES The potential impacts to community facilities from this alternative would be nearly identical to those of the Proposed Project, given a nearly identical program. 17.5.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES The potential impacts to infrastructure and utilities from this alternative would be nearly identical to those of the Proposed Project, given a nearly identical program. 17.5.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION The potential impacts to traffic and transportation from this alternative would be nearly identical to those of the Proposed Project, given a nearly identical program. The Reduced Size alternative would generate three fewer AM peak hour trips, three fewer midday peak hour trips, and three fewer PM peak hour trips than the Proposed Project. As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density alternative would not have a significant adverse impact on the traffic and transportation systems. 17.5.11. AIR QUALITY AND NOISE The potential impacts to air quality and noise from this alternative would be nearly identical to those of the Proposed Project, given a nearly identical level of traffic generation and a similar built program. 17.5.12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The potential impacts from hazardous materials for this alternative would be identical to those of the Proposed Project, given that both require the demolition of the existing on-Site building and disturbance to the same previously disturbed land areas. 17.5.13. CONSTRUCTION Construction of this alternative would be largely similar to that of the Proposed Project and would be anticipated to result in similar temporary impacts. The time required for building foundations would be longer than with the Proposed Project, given the larger building footprint. Vertical construction and interior finishing may take slightly time than the Proposed Project, given the smaller overall gsf of development of this alternative. The overall extent of potential impacts, including with respect to noise, air quality, and traffic would be anticipated to be the same as the Proposed Project. 17.6. PROPOSED PROJECT WITH NO CHANGE TO MINIMUM AGE FOR RESIDENTS This alternative would have the same program and building/Site layout as the Proposed Project. The only difference would be that the minimum age for residents of this alternative would be 62 years, as opposed to 55 years with the Proposed Project. Impacts related to the number of units, on-Site resident or employee population, building layout and design, or physical impacts to the Site during construction or operation of the project would be identical to the Proposed Project. As such, only those impacts that could be different than the Proposed Project are addressed below. Chapter 17: Alternatives DEIS 17-29 9/12/2018 Consistent with the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a housing facility may lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children if they are either intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older or, if they are intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older. To qualify for the “55 or older” housing exemption from the FHA, at least 80 percent of units must have at least one occupant who is at least 55 years old and must publish and adhere to policies demonstrating intent to operate as 55 or older housing, consistent with United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. 5 If a facility meets either of these requirements, the facility may refuse to rent or sell a dwelling unit to a family with minor children. As such, regardless of whether a facility is restricted to those 62 years old or older or 55 years old or older, that facility can restrict occupancy to families without children. 17.6.1. LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY As with the Proposed Project, the Reduced Size alternative would require an amendment to the Village’s PUD zoning regulations. The amendment would be similar in all respects to the Proposed Zoning, except that the zoning amendment with this alternative would not require a change to the minimum age of residents in a senior living facility. 17.6.2. COMMUNITY FACILITIES This alternative would have the same impacts to emergency services, open space, solid waste, and senior service programs as the Proposed Project. As discussed in Chapter 10, “Community Facilities,” it is extremely rare for a residential community that is age-restricted to those 55 years and older to have children living in the community and attending the public school system. The Applicant acknowledges that maintaining the minimum age of a resident in a senior living facility at 62 years old would further reduce this possibility.  5 https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/seniors 7. 1 3 . 1 8 Figure 17-1900 KING STREET Non-Age Restricted As-of-Right Residential Alternative AR C H I T E C T : AP P L I C A N T / O W N E R : Drawing No: Project No: Date: Scale: Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. No. Re v i s i o n Dat e B y CO P Y R I G H T © 201 8 by J M C All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , pho t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CON S U L T A N T S , L L C | J O H N M E Y E R C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . ( J M C ) . A n y m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e rmis s i o n o f J M C s h a l l r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d a n d u n u s a b l e . Existing Building and Parking Lot So u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g 7. 1 3 . 1 8 Figure 17-2900 KING STREET Non-Age Restricted As-of-Right Residential Alternative — Arbors Footprint AR C H I T E C T : AP P L I C A N T / O W N E R : Drawing No: Project No: Date: Scale: Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. No. Re v i s i o n Dat e B y CO P Y R I G H T © 201 8 by J M C All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , pho t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CON S U L T A N T S , L L C | J O H N M E Y E R C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . ( J M C ) . A n y m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e rmis s i o n o f J M C s h a l l r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d a n d u n u s a b l e . So u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g 7. 1 3 . 1 8 Figure 17-3900 KING STREET Reduced Density Alternative AR C H I T E C T : AP P L I C A N T / O W N E R : Drawing No: Project No: Date: Scale: Drawn:Approved: ANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS ANDREPORTS BEARING THE SEALOF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER OR LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OFSECTION 7209 OF THE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BYSECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. No. Re v i s i o n Dat e B y CO P Y R I G H T © 201 7 by J M C All R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f t h i s d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d i n a r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , o r t r a n s m i t t e d i n a n y f o r m o r b y m e a n s , e l e c t r o n i c , m e c h a n i c a l , pho t o c o p y i n g , r e c o r d i n g o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f J M C P L A N N I N G , E N G I N E E R I N G , L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E & L A N D S U R V E Y I N G , P L L C | J M C S I T E D E V E L O P M E N T CON S U L T A N T S , L L C | J O H N M E Y E R C O N S U L T I N G , I N C . ( J M C ) . A n y m o d i f i c a t i o n s o r a l t e r a t i o n s t o t h i s d o c u m e n t w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e rmis s i o n o f J M C s h a l l r e n d e r t h e m i n v a l i d a n d u n u s a b l e . So u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Existing Building and Parking Lot 7 . 1 3 . 1 8 Figure 17-4 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Reduced Size AlternativeANY ALTERATION OF PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, PLATS AND REPORTS BEARING THE SEAL OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR IS A VIOLATION OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW,EXCEPT AS PROVIDED FOR BY SECTION 7209, SUBSECTION 2. S o u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Ex i s t i n g B u i l d i n g a n d P a r k i n g L o t 7. 1 3 . 1 8 Figure 17-5900 KING STREET Reduced Size Alternative—Typical Independent Living Floor Plan Reduced Size Independent Living Unit Count 1 BR/Den/1 BA (900 sf) 2 BR/2 BA (1,040 sf) 2 BR/Den/2 BA (1,200 sf) 3 BR/2.5 BA (1,450 sf) 1st floor 18 11 11 6 2nd floor 21 11 17 8 3rd floor 21 11 17 8 Total Units 60 33 45 22 So u r c e : P e r k i n s E a s t m a n