The URL can be used to link to this page

2017.10.26 Tech Memo900 King Street Redevelopment Technical Memorandum DRAFT October 26, 2017 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Front Matter ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Brief Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3. Description of Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Change .......................................................... 2 1.4. Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................ 4 1.5. List of Approvals ......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Current Conditions of the Project Site ......................................................................................... 4 2.2. Proposed New Uses and Buildings .............................................................................................. 5 2.3. Proposed Parking and Circulation Plans ..................................................................................... 7 2.4. Other Major Proposed Project Components ................................................................................ 8 2.5. Anticipated Fiscal Benefits of the Project ................................................................................. 10 3. Potential Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................... 11 3.1. Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning ........................................................................................ 11 3.2. Geography, Soils, Topography .................................................................................................. 24 3.3. Waters and Wetlands ................................................................................................................. 28 3.4. Stormwater Management ........................................................................................................... 31 3.5. Vegetation and Wildlife ............................................................................................................. 32 3.6. Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 35 3.7. Visual Resources and Community Character ............................................................................ 37 3.8. Community Facilities ................................................................................................................ 45 3.9. Infrastructure and Utilities ......................................................................................................... 51 3.10. Traffic and Transportation ......................................................................................................... 52 3.11. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................. 57 3.12. Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 62 3.13. Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................................. 67 3.14. Construction .............................................................................................................................. 69 List of Appendices Appendix A – Procedural Information A-1 Table of Contents for Technical Memorandum A-2 PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan Checklists A-3 Revised Proposed Zoning Appendix B – Current Site Information B-1 Property Card B-2 Finding of Zoning Compliance B-3 Deed, covenants, and restrictions B-4 Existing Building Sections and Elevations Appendix C – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Appendix D – Natural Resources D-1 EAF Mapper & IPaC Reports D-2 Wetland Delineation Report D-3 Vegetation Observed On-Site D-4 Tree Survey with Condition Appendix E – Correspondence E-1 SHPO Correspondence E-2 Emergency Services Correspondence E-3 School Correspondence Appendix F – Traffic Impact Study Appendix G – Noise Fundamentals Appendix H – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Technical Memorandum DRAFT 1 October 26, 2017 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. FRONT MATTER This Technical Memorandum is provided as a supplement to Part 1 of the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) in support of the petition for zoning amendments to allow a Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 900 King Street. The primary purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to provide information to assist the Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees, as Lead Agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) (6 NYCRR Part 617), in making a determination as to whether the Project, proposed by 900 King Street Owner LLC (the “Applicant”), may have a significant adverse environmental impact. In addition, this Technical Memorandum presents information for the Village Board of Trustees to consider in their deliberations regarding the zoning petition and PUD Concept Plan, including the benefits of the Proposed Project. The Technical Memorandum is organized into three sections. Section 1, “Introduction,” provides an overview of the Proposed Project, its Purpose and Need, and the approvals required to effectuate its development. Section 2, “Project Description,” provides a detailed description of the current environmental conditions of the Project Site, including its current use, and a description of the Proposed Project. Section 3, “Potential Environmental Impacts,” analyzes the potential for the Proposed Project to have a significant adverse impact in one or more environmental categories. As documented in the analyses presented herein, in the Applicant’s opinion, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse environmental impact. The outline for this Technical Memorandum was developed in coordination with the staff and consultants of the Village of Rye Brook (the “Village”). The Applicant prepared an initial draft of the outline and presented it to the Village’s staff and consultants on August 21, 2017. Based on written comments received, the Applicant revised the outline and distributed the final version to Village staff and consultants on September 7, 2017 (see Appendix A-1). The PUD Concept Plan, as well as the Preliminary Site Plan drawings for the Proposed Project, is presented in the full-size drawings prepared by JMC Engineering and Perkins Eastman Architects. An index of the requirements for submission of a PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan and the location of all the required elements therein can be found in Appendix A-2. 1.2. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant proposes to redevelop the Project Site, located at 900 King Street in the Village (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Proposed Project would include removal of the existing, mostly vacant, office building and surface parking lot and the construction of an integrated age-restricted residential community consisting of approximately 160 one-, two-, and three-bedroom units within a three- and four-story Independent Living (IL) facility in the center of the Site; approximately 85 units of Assisted Living / Memory Care (AL) in a four-story structure in the northeast of the Site; and 24 two- and three-bedroom residential townhouses in the western portion of the Site (see sheet C-300 of the full-size PUD Concept Plan). All of the units would be age-restricted to residents aged 55 or older. The Site would continue to be accessed from Arbor Drive and a new circular drive would be constructed within the Site that would connect and provide access to the Proposed Project’s three components. Parking for the IL facility would be provided below the proposed building. Parking for the AL units would be provided in three 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 2 DRAFT small surface lots located to the north and east of the AL building. Surface parking for the townhouses would be located adjacent to each unit. The Proposed Project would remove the existing underperforming commercial office building and surface parking lot currently located on the Project Site. Most, if not all, of the existing vegetation between the proposed townhouses and the existing residences at The Arbors to the west would remain, maintaining the existing physical and visual buffer between the two properties. To allow for the redevelopment of the Project Site, the Applicant has petitioned the Village Board of Trustees to add a new section to the Rye Brook Zoning Code as Section 250-7(E)(6). The Proposed Zoning Amendment would modify the existing density requirements of the PUD regulations, allow a building height of 45 feet for senior living facilities, establish 55 years of age as the minimum age for senior living facilities, and establish site-specific bulk and area requirements. As described more fully in Section 2, “Project Description,” the Applicant has modified both the zoning amendments and the PUD Concept Plan included in its original Zoning Petition with this submission. Specifically, in response to comments from the Board of Trustees, Planning Board, Village staff and consultants, and members of the public, the Applicant has reduced the proposed height of the IL building along its southern and western frontages from four stories to three stories and has modified the building’s articulation to further reduce the perceived mass of the building from Arbor Drive. 1.3. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE 1.3.1. Existing Zoning The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district. The Site is part of a larger PUD district, which was established between 1979 and 1981 when the Site was under the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Rye. The PUD, which includes the Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park, is reflected on the Village’s Zoning Map as a PUD but, unlike other PUDs within the Village, there is no specific reference to the regulatory scheme adopted in connection with this PUD. For example, the Village Zoning Map, in connection with the BelleFair PUD, references a specific local law which established the PUD and set up the regulatory scheme for BelleFair, including the permitted uses, density, and bulk and area requirements. The Village’s existing PUD regulations generally allow a variety of land uses, including residential, office, and retail uses. The density and bulk requirements for each use are recited in §250-7E(2)(d) and summarized in Table 1. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 3 October 26, 2017 Table 1 Existing PUD Requirements Use Allowable Height Allowable Density Notes Residential 30 feet 9,000 sf(1) per acre 6 dwelling units per acre Office 35 feet 40 feet–conference center 0.12 FAR(2) 0.164 FAR with Board of Trustees approval Limited Retail/Personal Service 30 feet 3,500 sf total Primarily to serve residents and employees of PUD Senior Living Facilities 35 feet(3) Same as residential Age restriction 62 years Notes: 1 sf = square feet 2 FAR = Floor Area Ratio 3 Height is defined as “the weighted average of the building height measured from finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the building”. The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000 sf office building (see Appendix B-1), a use allowed by the current PUD zoning district. However, the FAR of the office building is approximately 0.28, which is more than twice what is currently allowed. In addition, the building is approximately 39 feet high to the top of the roof, which is higher than allowed by current regulations, and its fascia extends an additional 7.5 feet, which is also more than allowed by current regulations. The original land use approval for the PUD for the Project Site and The Arbors were kept by the Town of Rye. The Applicant understands that those records were lost in a flood. Therefore, the specific details established by the original PUD approvals cannot be confirmed. The Village Board of Trustees recognized this fact in a May 26, 1998 Resolution with which the Building Inspector at that time, William Gerety, concurred in his cover letter dated June 8, 1998. The Resolution and letter conclude that the existing development of the Project Site is fully conforming to is original site plan approval in order to provide it lawful status, i.e., it is zoning compliant (see Appendix B-2). 1.3.2. Proposed Zoning On June 5, 2017, the Applicant petitioned the Village Board of Trustees for certain zoning amendments to facilitate the adoption of a PUD Concept Plan. Based on comments made by the Board of Trustees, Planning Board, Village staff and consultants, the proposed Local Law has been revised since its original submittal (see Appendix A-3). Specifically, the revised Proposed Local Law: • Clarifies that “senior living facilities are the only use allowed and proposed for the Project Site; • Proposes a separate density standard for ‘senior living facilities’ in recognition of the inherent difference in use, and subsequently in impacts, from non-age-restricted residential uses; and, • Incorporates the language of the existing PUD text with respect to the calculation of height for a ‘senior living facility’. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 4 DRAFT 1.4. PURPOSE AND NEED The Proposed Project would return the Site to productive use for the owner and the Site’s various property taxing jurisdictions with uses that would minimize impacts to the surrounding residential and institutional uses. Specifically, the Proposed Project would dramatically minimize the generation of traffic as compared to the existing, zoning compliant use. In addition, the Proposed Project would maintain the current landscaped buffers between the Project Site and the surrounding uses, including the residential uses to the west. The Proposed Project would also serve a market need by providing additional senior living options in the region—a need documented by the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan (see Section 3.1, “Land Use, Public Policy, and Zoning,” of this Memorandum). 1.5. LIST OF APPROVALS The Proposed Project requires approvals from several governmental agencies, as summarized in Table 2. The Proposed Zoning will also be referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, pursuant Chapter 239 of the General Municipal Law, and the Village of Rye Brook Planning Board pursuant to §250-7E of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code. Table 2 Required Approvals Governmental Entity Approval Required Village of Rye Brook Board of Trustees Zone text amendment, site plan approval, subdivision approval, tree removal permit Planning Board Wetland/Watercourse buffer disturbance permit, Steep slope permit Department of Public Works MS4 / SWPPP approval New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 5-acre waiver New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Signal retimings New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Section 14.09 review 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1. CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE PROJECT SITE The Project Site, known as 900 King Street, is located at 900 King Street in the Village and is approximately 17.77 acres (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Site is bounded to the north by the Hutchinson River Parkway, the east by the Village’s Police Department, Fire Department, and Village Hall, as well as approximately 168 feet along King Street (NYS Rt. 120A), to the south by Arbor Drive, Harkness Park, and the Blind Brook High School, and to the west by The Arbors townhouse development. Access to the Site is from Arbor Drive, which connects to King Street at a signalized intersection. Arbor Drive is a private street, owned by The Arbors Homeowner’s Association. The Project Site is the beneficiary of an easement, allowing the Project Site to access an improved Arbor Drive (see Appendix B-3). The Project Site is dominated by the gently sloping surface parking lot in the eastern and northern portions of the Site. The Site ranges in elevation (el.) from a low point of Technical Memorandum DRAFT 5 October 26, 2017 approximately 220 feet at the southeastern corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet at the northwestern corner of the property. The center of the Site contains an abrupt, man-made change in elevation from the relatively flat parking area to the east (~ el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. A total of 14.9 acres, or 85.9 percent of the Site, is sloped less than 15 percent. As shown on sheet C-130 of the PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan, as well as Figures 3 and 4, the exterior of the Project Site contains areas of extensive vegetation. Along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west into the Project Site and along Arbor Drive for approximately 250 feet, is an area of thick wooded vegetation. Similarly, the area between the Project Site and Village Hall and firehouse contains wooded vegetation that obscures the view into or out of the Project Site. To the north, both within and adjacent to the Project Site, between the parking lot and the Hutchinson River Parkway, is an area of thick wooded vegetation, that obscures views into and out of the Project Site from the Parkway. The western edge of the Project Site contains an undeveloped area of thick wooded vegetation in which a stream corridor and wetland are present. This vegetation, along with the rise in topography within the area to the east of the stream, restricts views into and out of the Project Site from The Arbors development. An approximately 0.72-acre area of maintained lawn is located between this wooded area and the easternmost townhouses within The Arbors. Finally, the Project Site’s southern frontage is heavily vegetated with the exception of the area between the Site’s two driveways. As such, the interior of the Project Site is currently only visible from approximately 400 feet of Arbor Drive. The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000 sf office building (see Appendix B-1) and approximately 595 parking spaces (see Figure 5). The Site’s improvements result in approximately 7.28 acres of impervious cover, or approximately 41 percent of the Project Site. The office building is a three-story structure, with some covered 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. 2.2. PROPOSED NEW USES AND BUILDINGS 2.2.1. Conceptual Program The Proposed Project would include removal of the existing office building and surface parking lot and the construction of an integrated age-restricted residential community consisting of approximately 160 one-, two-, and three-bedroom units (approximately 301 bedrooms total) within a three- and four-story IL facility in the center of the Site; approximately 85 units of AL in a four-story structure in the northeast of the Site; and, 24 two- and three-bedroom residential townhouses (approximately 60 bedrooms total) in the western portion of the Site (see sheet C-300 of PUD Concept Plan). All of the units would be age-restricted to residents aged 55 or older. The existing vegetation in the western portion of the Project Site, between the Project Site and The Arbors, would remain. The PUD Concept Plan, as well as the Preliminary Site Plan for the Proposed Project, is provided in the full-size drawings prepared by JMC Engineering and Perkins Eastman Architects. An index of the requirements for submission of a PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan and the location of all the required elements therein can be found in Appendix A-2. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 6 DRAFT The center of the Site would be improved with a three- and four-story IL building, with 160 age-restricted units (see the full size PUD Concept Plan for floorplans, elevations and sections of the proposed IL building). Independent living is senior housing for able-bodied, healthy seniors who can care for themselves located in a setting that provides enhanced support and recreational services. Each IL unit would contain a full kitchen and full bathroom. The building would have approximately 43 one-bedroom units, 93 two-bedroom units, and 24 three-bedroom units for a total of approximately 301 bedrooms. The typical age of new IL residents is between 78 and 84.1 The units are designed to accommodate accessibility and aging in place. The IL building will also contain a full commercial kitchen that can provide three meals a day. (As discussed below, this kitchen will also serve the AL building.) It is anticipated that the IL building will provide one or more meal plans for the residents. In addition to the formal dining room, it is anticipated that the IL building will provide an informal bistro and/or bar. Other amenities within the IL building are likely to include: an indoor fitness center, multipurpose room (which can be used for Zumba/aerobics or cultural/movie presentations), card rooms, and a library/computer area. There is also likely to be a small clinical space within the building for visiting medical professionals. A personal care suite that includes hair salon, manicure/pedicure, and/or massage therapy, may also be provided. Conceptual floor plans for the IL building are shown on sheets A-101 to A-103 of the PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan set. The IL building and the larger age-restricted community proposed for the Project Site, would promote health and wellness. As such, the grounds around the building would have pathways for walking within the overall landscaped Site. The rear courtyard of the IL building would contain a terrace, as well as spaces programmed with active and passive recreation areas. Attached to the northeast portion of the IL building is proposed a four-story AL building with 85 units/beds (see the full size PUD Concept Plan for elevations and sections of the proposed AL building). Assisted living provides care for individuals that need help with one or more tasks of daily living, but who do not require skilled nursing care. The AL units will not have a kitchen and, therefore, do not meet the definition of a “dwelling unit” as set forth in the Village’s Zoning Code. Some of the AL units would be reserved for “memory care,” which provides services to those with some form of dementia. The AL building would share back-of-house spaces with the IL building. Specifically, it is anticipated that the AL building would share the same mechanical equipment and spaces, housekeeping, kitchen, and receiving facilities. In the rear of the AL building would be a secure “wandering garden” in which AL residents could safely and securely access the outdoors. To the west of the IL building would be three clusters of four townhouse buildings, each of which would contain two dwelling units. These 24 townhouses would be age- restricted to those at least 55 years. Each townhouse unit would feature a one-car garage and driveway space for at least one car. In addition, each townhouse cluster would have four dedicated off-street parking spaces for visitors. The townhouses would be two and two-and-a-half stories in height and would be a mix of two- and three-bedroom units. As 1 The average age of a new IL resident was provided by the Project’s architect, PerkinsEastman, based on their experience with similar projects in the region. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 7 October 26, 2017 with the other components of the Proposed Project, it is anticipated that these units would be rental units. As required by §209-3F of the Village Code, 19 dwelling units (10 percent of all dwelling units proposed for the Project Site) would be provided as affordable units in accordance with the requirements of §250-26.1F(3)(d) of the Village of Rye Brook Zoning Code. 2.2.2. Proposed Method of Ownership and Control The Project Site is anticipated to be owned by a single entity. There is no plan to subdivide the Project Site. The IL, AL, and townhouse units are all anticipated to be rental units. A managing agent and/or operator may be retained to manage and operate the Project, and that party may be an affiliate of the owner. 2.3. PROPOSED PARKING AND CIRCULATION PLANS 2.3.1. Vehicular Circulation The Project Site would continue to be accessed from Arbor Drive and there would continue to be two access points from the Site to Arbor Drive. The proposed access points would be slightly east of their current location. In between the two, two-way access drives would be a 330-foot long planted island ranging in depth from 55-feet to 105-feet deep (see sheet C-300 of PUD Concept Plan). A two-way 26-foot wide circular access driveway would loop around the Site and provide access to all on-Site buildings and parking areas. The IL building would include a porte cochere along its front (southern) façade. The porte cochere would be accessed by an approximately 190-foot long, looped drive. The drive would feature a 29-feet wide planted median island in which five handicapped spaces would be located (see sheet C-300 of PUD Concept Plan). Residents or visitors being picked up or dropped off from the IL building would utilize the looped drive and porte cochere for convenient building access. Daily deliveries utilizing small trucks, such as UPS or FedEx, would also utilize the porte cochere. Larger delivery vehicles would utilize the designated loading area located behind the IL building. Parking for the IL building would be accommodated underneath the northern portion of the building. The parking area would be accessed from one of two driveways on either side of the IL building. The underground parking area would accommodate 173 parking spaces, which is more than one per IL unit. Vehicular access to the AL building would be provided from the northeast portion of the main site driveway. A one-way porte cochere, accessed by an 18-foot wide drive, would be located on the building’s southern façade. The porte cochere would be used for resident pick-up and drop-off and for daily deliveries that utilize small trucks, such as UPS or FedEx. Three parking spaces would be provided at this location. Parking for the AL facility’s employees and visitors would be provided in three separate areas (see sheet C-300 of PUD Concept Plan). Twenty-eight spaces would be located immediately to the east of the building, 10 spaces would be located to the west of the building, along the entrance to the loading area, and 19 additional spaces would be located to the northwest of the building, along the interior of the site driveway. In all, 60 parking spaces would be provided for the AL building (or seven spaces for every 10 units), which is in excess 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 8 DRAFT of what would be required by the Proposed Zoning (five spaces for every 10 units, as recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.) Loading for the IL and AL building would be located on the north side of the building and would be accessed from the main Site road (see sheet C-320 of PUD Concept Plan). This loading area would be used by both the IL and AL facilities. The loading area is designed to permit trucks to back in to unload and pull out to return to the main Site road. Each townhouse cluster would be accessed by its own drive from the western side of the main Site driveway. The interior of each cluster’s driveway would be appropriately sized to allow emergency vehicle access. As described more fully in Section 3.8, “Community Facilities,” the Applicant proposes to construct an emergency access driveway in the northeast corner of the Project Site. This driveway would connect the existing Village parking lot behind the firehouse to the internal Project Site driveway. This drive would provide emergency access to the Project Site and to The Arbors townhouses in the event that Arbor Drive at King Street was blocked. During normal operation, this driveway would be secured at both ends with a bollard and chain assembly. 2.3.2. Pedestrian Circulation A 5-foot wide sidewalk would be provided around the IL and AL building to connect the building’s entrances and walking paths. Crosswalks would be provided at all internal driveways (see sheet C-300). The existing 4-foot wide paved walking path along the Site’s eastern boundary would be extended to the north to its terminus, which would be a landscaped looped path. Maintenance for this walking path is the current responsibility of the Blind Brook School District (BBSD) subject to an easement that would continue with the Proposed Project. The internal Site sidewalk system would connect to the southern end of this walking path at Arbor Drive and the existing crosswalk to the High School. 2.4. OTHER MAJOR PROPOSED PROJECT COMPONENTS 2.4.1. Grading The grading of the main site driveway has been designed to maintain slopes between 1.5 percent and 6 percent, with the two access driveways having a maximum slope of 5 percent, which is within acceptable design standards. The embankments of the slopes are 3:1. In order to minimize impacts to the buffer around Wetland A, retaining walls are proposed to limit the extent of the grading in this area. The retaining walls are a maximum of 6 feet in height. All entrances to the IL and AL building would be ADA accessible. 2.4.2. Proposed Landscaping and Buffers The existing vegetation within the western portion of the Project Site, between the Site and The Arbors, would remain, maintaining this buffer between the two properties. As shown on sheet C-130, the vegetation along the Site’s King Street frontage, extending west along Arbor Drive to the new Site driveway, would also remain, maintaining this significant vegetative buffer between King Street and the interior of the Project Site. Similarly, the majority of the existing vegetation along the Site’s northern boundary and between Arbor Drive and the southernmost townhouse cluster would also be preserved. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 9 October 26, 2017 Of the existing vegetation to be removed (a total of 131 trees with a diameter breast height (dbh) greater than 10-inches), most is along the eastern boundary of the Site, between the Site and the Village-owned land and in the vicinity of the proposed easternmost site access point. The vegetation proposed to be removed between the Site and the Village property would allow for expansion of the stormwater management basin. As shown on sheet L-100, an extensive landscape plan has been developed for the Proposed Project. In total, 425 trees and 288 shrubs are proposed to be planted within the Project Site with emphasis on providing or enhancing the visual buffer between the Site and the properties to the east. In addition, the area along the Site’s Arbor Drive frontage has been prioritized for additional buffer landscaping. Specifically, the large planted island between the Site’s two main driveways has been designed to provide an enhanced visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and Arbor Drive. The island would feature a 10-foot rise in elevation and significant clusters of plantings on both its eastern and western edges. The result would be increased screening of the Proposed IL building from Arbor Drive and a visual “framing” of the main entrance to the IL building, which would be approximately 285 feet from Arbor Drive. Additional trees and shrubs would be planted to the west of the westernmost Site access, to enhance the visual screening of the townhouses from Arbor Drive. Within the interior of the Site, the landscaping has been designed to include a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, ornamental flowering trees, and shrub areas, to present an attractive appearance for the residents and the surrounding community and to provide seasonal interest. 2.4.3. Proposed Pedestrian Path and Easement As stated above, the existing path along the Site’s eastern boundary, constructed for the benefit of the High School, would be extended north. 2.4.4. Proposed Stormwater Management A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed for the Proposed Project in accordance with State and Village regulations and design guidelines.2 The proposed stormwater management system includes standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration systems, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. Implementation of these practices will enhance stormwater quality and reduce peak rates of runoff from the Project Site when compared to the existing condition. The SWPPP is summarized in Section 3.4 of this Memorandum, “Stormwater Management,” and is included in its entirety in Appendix C. 2.4.5. Proposed Water/Sewer Infrastructure As shown on the full size PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan, an 8-inch watermain is proposed to loop around the main building, with extensions provided to serve the proposed townhouses. The watermain would connect to the existing municipal main within Arbor Drive at two locations. Fire hydrants are proposed within the Project 2 Applicable stormwater requirements are found in the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-15-002, effective January 29, 2015, last modified November 23, 2016, the "New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual," last revised January 2015 and Chapter 217 "Stormwater Management" of the Village Zoning Code. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 10 DRAFT Site in accordance with fire code requirements. A 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch fire service are proposed to serve the main building. An 8-inch sanitary main is proposed to loop around the main building, with extensions provided to serve the proposed townhouses. The sanitary service would enter the IL/AL building with an 8-inch service line that would connect to the existing private main for the Project Site. 2.5. ANTICIPATED FISCAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT The Proposed Project would result in the redevelopment of an underperforming commercial asset into a successful age-restricted residential community. In addition to the repurposing of an aesthetically unappealing and substantially vacant office building and vast surface parking field, the primary benefit to the Village is the potential for increased property tax revenue. 2.5.1. Current Property Tax Revenue of the Site The assessed value of the Project Site has decreased from $17 million in 2013 to $15.1 million in 2017, as a result of tax certiorari proceedings in which the property owner challenged the Town’s initial assessment of the Site. As shown in Table 3, as a result of the decrease in assessed value, the property tax revenues to the Village, BBSD, and other taxing jurisdictions has also decreased. (For ease of comparison, the 2017 tax rates are used for each tax year.) As shown, the property tax revenue generated by the Project Site has decreased by more than $65,000 (or 11 percent). In 2017, the Project Site paid approximately $533,078 in property taxes, including $114,043 to the Village and $354,676 to the BBSD. Table 3 Historical Property Tax Revenue of the Project Site Tax Year Final Assessed Value 2017 Tax Rates per $1,000 of Assessed Value Village BBSD County Town Blind Brook Sewer Solid Waste Total (7.527608) (23.410938) (3.282447) (0.045824) (0.623727) (0.296117) (35.186661) 2013 $17,000,000 $127,969 $397,986 $55,802 $779 $10,603 $5,034 $598,173 2014 $16,500,000 $124,206 $386,280 $54,160 $756 $10,291 $4,886 $580,580 2015 $16,000,000 $120,442 $374,575 $52,519 $733 $9,980 $4,738 $562,987 2016 $16,000,000 $120,442 $374,575 $52,519 $733 $9,980 $4,738 $562,987 2017 $15,150,000 $114,043 $354,676 $49,729 $694 $9,449 $4,486 $533,078 Source: Tax rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 10/17/2017 2.5.2. Anticipated Property Tax Revenue of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project would be expected to significantly increase the assessed value of, and subsequently the property tax revenue generated by, the Project Site. Using the same per unit assessed value of the Atria Rye Brook, the Project Site would be estimated to have an assessed value of $52.527 million upon completion of the Proposed Project.3 As 3 The Atria, Rye Brook is a 168-unit IL and AL facility located at 1200 King Street in the Village. The 2017 assessed value of the Atria Rye Brook is $32,805,400, which equals $195,270 per unit. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 11 October 26, 2017 shown in Table 4, based on this assessed value, the Project Site would be estimated to generate approximately $1.848 million per year in property taxes, which is approximately $1.315 million more than the Site currently generates. Of this, $395,403 would go to the Village, which is an increase of $281,359 over current taxes, and $1,229,706 would go to the BBSD, representing an increase of $875,031 over current revenue generated by the Project Site. Table 4 Projected Property Tax Revenue of the Proposed Project Jurisdiction 2017 Tax Rate Current Assessed Value Current Taxes Projected Assessed Value Projected Taxes Difference Village 7.527608 $15,150,000 $114,043 $52,527,000 $395,403 $281,359 BBSD 23.410938 $15,150,000 $354,676 $52,527,000 $1,229,706 $875,031 Town 0.045824 $15,150,000 $694 $52,527,000 $2,407 $1,713 Blind Brook Sewer 0.623727 $15,150,000 $9,449 $52,527,000 $32,763 $23,313 Solid Waste 0.296117 $15,150,000 $4,486 $52,527,000 $15,554 $11,068 Total 35.186661 $15,150,000 $533,078 $52,527,000 $1,848,250 $1,315,172 Source: Tax rates: https://www3.westchestergov.com/property-tax-rates, last accessed 10/17/2017 3. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This section of the Technical Memorandum evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. 3.1. LAND USE, PUBLIC POLICY, AND ZONING This section of the Technical Memorandum evaluates the consistency of the Proposed Project with existing land use, public policy documents, and zoning. 3.1.1. Zoning and Land Use Existing Site Zoning The Project Site is located within the Village’s PUD zoning district (see Figure 6). The Site is part of a larger PUD, which was established between 1979 and 1981 when the Site was under the zoning jurisdiction of the Town of Rye. The PUD, which includes the Project Site, The Arbors, and Harkness Park is reflected on the Rye Brook Zoning Map as a PUD but, unlike other PUDs within the Village, there is no specific reference to the regulatory requirements adopted in connection with this PUD. For example, for the BelleFair PUD, the Rye Brook Zoning Map references a specific local law, which established the PUD and set up the regulatory program, including permitted uses, density, and bulk and area requirements. The Village’s general PUD regulations allow residential, office, and retail uses. Density and bulk requirements for each use are presented in §250-7E(2)(d) and summarized in Table 5, below. Applying this per unit assessment to the Proposed Project’s mix of IL and AL units, as well as the age-restricted townhouses, provides an estimated assessed value of $52,527. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 12 DRAFT Table 5 Existing PUD Requirements Use Allowed Height Allowed Density Notes Residential 30 feet 9,000 sf per acre 6 dwelling units per acre Office 35 feet 0.12 FAR Conference Center 40 feet 0.164 FAR with Board of Trustees approval Limited Retail / Personal Service 30 feet 3,500 sf total Primarily to serve residents and employees of PUD Senior Living Facilities 35 feet1 Same as residential Age restriction 62 years Note: 1 Height is defined as “the weighted average of the building height measured from finished grade adjacent to the exterior walls of the building.” Consistency with Existing PUD Zoning The Project Site is currently improved with an approximately 215,000 sf office building (see Appendix B-1), a use allowed by the current PUD zoning district. However, the FAR of the office building is approximately 0.28, which is more than twice what is currently allowed. 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 original land use approval for the PUD for the Project Site and The Arbors were kept by the Town of Rye. The Applicant understands that those records were lost in a flood. Therefore, the specific details established by the original PUD approvals cannot be confirmed. The Village Board of Trustees recognized this fact in a May 26, 1998 Resolution with which the Building Inspector at that time, William Gerety, concurred in his cover letter dated June 8, 1998. The Resolution and letter conclude that the existing development of the Project Site is fully conforming to is original site plan approval in order to provide it lawful status, i.e., it is zoning compliant (see Appendix B-2). Proposed PUD Zoning Amendments As described in Section 1.3 of this Technical Memorandum, the Applicant has petitioned the Board of Trustees for zoning amendments to facilitate the Proposed Project. The revised proposed zoning amendments are in Appendix A-3. The Proposed Zoning would permit senior living facilities to be constructed to a maximum height of 45 feet, as recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, set specific density requirements for senior living facilities in recognition of the differences between the impacts of this use and traditional residential uses, and, establish 55 years of age as the minimum age for residents of senior living facilities. The amendments would also establish site-specific bulk and area requirements. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 13 October 26, 2017 Other PUD Zoning Requirements The Village’s PUD zoning district requires the provision of buffer areas and open space within an overall PUD district (§250-7E(3)(e) and (f)). As stated above, the Project Site, and the larger PUD within which the Project Site is located, was developed prior to the implementation of these requirements. Neither individual development within the PUD (e.g., The Arbors and the Project Site) nor the overall PUD itself is compliant with the current buffer area and open space requirements. In addition to the buffer requirements, the Village’s PUD regulations set forth minimum lot sizes and road frontage requirements, which are presumably applicable to the PUD as a whole and not an individual site. Table 6 compares the current PUD requirements and Site condition to the Proposed Zoning and Proposed Project. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 14 October 26, 2017 Table 6 Other PUD Requirements Current Proposed Notes PUD Requirement Project Site PUD Requirement Project Site Minimum lot area 30 acres 17.77 acres 15 acres No change Frontage on State Road, County, or major Village Road 150 feet 168 feet No change No change Buffer Areas 25% of Site (Board of Trustees may increase or decrease by 20%) N/A No Change N/A Buffer requirement apply to the entire PUD district. 150 feet from property line abutting existing road1 357 feet from King Street No Change ~300 feet from King Street Applies to King Street as the existing road when PUD established 100 feet along zoning district boundary1 12 feet along northern boundary No Change No change on northern boundary; AL building 94 feet from property line (firehouse) The closest portion of the AL building to the zoning district boundary is adjacent to the firehouse parking lot. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact from the slight reduction in the buffer at this location. Parking set back 50 or 100 feet from perimeter PUD property line 77 feet from east 12 feet from north No Change 16 feet from east 50 feet from north 70 feet from south The easternmost AL parking would be adjacent to the parking lot behind the Village firehouse. The southernmost 4-guest parking spaces for the townhouses would be 70 feet from the northernmost point of the MS/HS property line. Neither location would create a significant adverse impact to adjoining properties. Public Open Space 10% dedicated space or fee in lieu N/A No Change N/A Applies to PUD Site as a whole See Section 3.8.4 of this Memorandum (Harkness Park (~3.2 acres) is within the existing PUD district) Parking Office: 1 per 200 sf3 (1,075 spaces) 595 spaces -- -- Ratio for senior living facility was recommended by Village’s Comprehensive Plan Two-family dwelling: 2.5 per unit2 -- No change (24 * 2.5 = 60) 61 Age-restricted multifamily No specific requirement 1 per unit (1 * 160 = 160) 179 Senior living facility: 0.75 spaces per unit4 -- 0.5 per unit (85 * 0.5 = 43) 60 Notes: 1 §250-7E(2)(e)[1][d] allows Board of Trustees to reduce buffers based on site-specific findings. 2 §250-6G(c)(1)(b)[3] 3 §250-6G(c)(1)(b)[11] 4 §250-7E(2)(g) 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 15 DRAFT Consistency with Scenic Roads Overlay District The Project Site is within the Village’s Scenic Roads Overlay District (SROD). The SROD, codified in §250-7F of the Zoning Code, was “established for the purpose of preserving the Village of Rye Brook’s historic resources, stone walls, natural features and views from its roadways…” The Proposed Project’s consistency with the requirements of the SROD is analyzed below. For ease of navigation, the SROD requirements are presented in italic text. As demonstrated, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the requirements of the SROD. The structure or alteration shall be architecturally compatible with surrounding structures and the important scenic and natural features of the site shall be preserved. §250-7F(6)(a) The structures immediately surrounding the Project Site possess diverse architectural character and include single-family residential uses, institutional uses, townhouses, and a firehouse. As such, the Proposed Project’s buildings have been designed to be architecturally compatible with the predominant characteristics of residential construction within the Village. This includes the use of clapboard and stone siding, dormers and gabled roofs. In addition, the proposed townhouses are located in the western portion of the Site, closest to the existing townhouses within The Arbors. The Site’s frontage along King Street, the road to which the SROD applies, will be preserved in its current state with relatively dense wooded vegetation. The interior of the Site, which is not visible from a public right-of-way, contains no important scenic features. The Proposed Project will preserve the important on-Site natural features, including the wetlands and streams. The minimum front yard setback requirement for all structures, as set forth for the underlying zoning district, shall be increased by a factor of 1.5…Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in the case of a lot abutting two or more streets, the increased front yard setback requirement shall apply only to the front yards abutting a street located within the SROD. §250-7F(6)(b) The current PUD zoning district does not have a front yard setback requirement. Nonetheless, the buildings on the Project Site would be set back approximately 300 feet from King Street, which is the street abutting the Project Site that is within the SROD. This distance, combined with the preservation of the Site’s wooded King Street frontage, would be protective of King Street’s scenic character in this location. A thirty-five-foot-wide area, measured perpendicularly from the front property line and running the length of the lot frontage shall remain as a vegetative buffer. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, in the case of a lot abutting two or more streets, the vegetative buffer requirement shall apply only to frontages abutting a street located within the SROD. §250-7F(6)(c) Within the Project Site, the area within approximately 300 feet of King would be maintained in its current condition, consisting of dense wooded vegetation. As stated above, King Street is the street abutting the Project Site that is within the SROD. The Applicant would maintain and preserve the buffer to protect the scenic quality of King Street in this location. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 16 DRAFT A conservation easement may be placed on the thirty-five-foot-wide front yard buffer to protect the vegetative buffer. §250-7F(6)(d) Preservation of the vegetative buffer would be shown on the final, approved, site plan and maintenance of this area would be a condition of any final site plan approval. Therefore, a conservation easement is not required. Existing natural and constructed features, including but not limited to rock outcrops, stonewalls, gates, and entrance piers will be preserved and incorporated into development plans. §250-7F(6)(e) At present, building signage is located within the natural buffer. The Proposed Project would retain the existing vegetative buffer replacing and potentially slightly relocating signage. Any new utility equipment installed within a designated road shall be property screened…. §250-7F(6)(f) No above-ground utility equipment would be placed on the Project Site within 35 feet of King Street. Parking areas shall not be located within the front yard buffer and shall be placed to minimize encroachment upon areas and terrain that have qualities of natural beauty. §250- 7F(6)(g) No parking will be located within the SROD vegetative buffer. The majority of Project- required on-Site parking would be located underground, replacing the existing extensive surface parking lot, with an integrated age-restricted residential community within a landscaped setting. Any grading or earth moving operation shall be conducted so that the final, post development contours appear to be consistent with the predevelopment terrain, both on and adjacent to building sites. Within the front yard landscape buffer, existing grade shall not be altered. §250-7F(6)(h) No grading within the vegetative buffer is proposed. The Proposed Project would redevelop, and regrade a site that is currently developed with a large footprint office building and expansive surface parking lot. The Project Site has previously been disturbed and the grades within the Site are not reflective of its natural topography. Notwithstanding, the Proposed Project would be largely consistent with the contours of the Site as it currently exists. The eastern portion of the Project Site would remain relatively flat with higher elevations to the west. 3.1.2. Consistency of the Proposed Project with the Village of Rye Brook’s Comprehensive Plan General Recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan This section of the Memorandum analyzes the consistency of the Proposed Project with the relevant general recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. 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, Technical Memorandum DRAFT 17 October 26, 2017 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—The Proposed Project would utilize energy-efficient building design and fixtures. All outdoor lighting would utilize LED fixtures with full cut-offs. The Proposed Project would also reduce the amount of impervious surface area on the Project Site from the current condition, and provide enhanced stormwater management to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff and improve stormwater quality. Stable Economic Base—The Project Site contains an office building that has been largely vacant and under-performing for decades and has been the subject of tax certiorari proceedings seeking to lower the assessed value of the Site. The Proposed Project would provide significant tax revenues to the Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the BBSD, while placing no additional burden on the BBSD. Safety, Health, and Education—The Proposed Project would include modern life-saving technologies, including fully sprinklered buildings, and would feature wide hallways and elevators. Preserving the Natural, Cultural, Recreational, and Historic Assets of the Village—The Proposed Project would not disturb the existing on-Site wetlands and would minimize new disturbance to the wetland buffer areas. The Proposed Project would also reduce the amount of impervious area on the Project Site from its current condition. Finally, the Proposed Project would include modern stormwater management systems that would reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff as well as improve stormwater quality. Enhancing the Design of the Built Environment—The Proposed Project would develop the Project Site with three age-restricted residential uses 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. Smart-Growth Design Principles—The Proposed Project would redevelop and repurpose an existing disturbed Site that is currently improved with a largely vacant 200,000 sf office building and vast surface parking lot. The Project Site is well-served by existing infrastructure, including roads and utilities. As such, the Proposed Project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s goal of promoting smart-growth. 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 Proposed Project would enhance the quality of life for Rye Brook 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 the area, 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 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 18 DRAFT tax revenues for the Village and BBSD, while placing no additional demands on the BBSD. 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 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) 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 of the Memorandum analyzes the consistency of the Proposed Project with the sections of the Comprehensive Plan that deal specifically with the Project Site. 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 existing office building on the Project Site has been largely vacant and under-performing for decades. The Project Site has been the subject of tax certiorari proceedings seeking to lower the assessed value of the Project Site. Redevelopment of the Project Site into an age-restricted residential community would provide significant tax revenues to the Village and other taxing jurisdictions, including the BBSD, while placing no additional burden on the BBSD. 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 Technical Memorandum DRAFT 19 October 26, 2017 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 Proposed Project would amend the existing PUD zoning regulations to facilitate the redevelopment of the Project Site. This zoning approach is consistent with the zoning approach utilized for the Village’s other PUDs and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s finding that the current zoning for the Project Site is not adequate to facilitate redevelopment. 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 Proposed Project responds directly to this section of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the Comprehensive Plan recommends allowing age-restricted and 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) 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 20 DRAFT The Proposed Zoning would not allow new PUD zones to be mapped south of the Hutchinson River Parkway; but would create site-specific zoning regulations for the Project Site thereby providing zoning certainty for the redevelopment of the Project Site, which is consistent with this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. • Adjust the density requirement for residential uses to a less restrictive regulation that still maintains Rye Brook’s low-density character. (pg. 144) As recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, the Proposed Zoning would adjust the residential zoning requirements of the current PUD to make redevelopment of the Project Site economically viable. The Proposed Project would also preserve the low-density character of the Village, preserving more than half of the Project Site as open space for use by Project residents. More than half of the Project Site would remain as open space, including all, or almost all, of the existing wooded buffer between the Project Site and The Arbors. • 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) This section of the Comprehensive Plan is not relevant to the Proposed Project. • Remove the square footage restriction on retail uses (currently capped at 3,500 sf), and instead require any retail to be accessory to a principal use. Continue to make such uses subject to a special permit. (pg. 145) This section of the Comprehensive Plan is not relevant to the Proposed Project. • 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. (pg. 145) The Proposed Zoning would allow AL and age-restricted residential facilities to be four stories or 45 feet tall. The Proposed Project includes a three- and four-story IL building and a four-story AL facility, which, as noted by the Comprehensive Plan, is consistent with typical facilities of these types. • Adjust the parking requirement for assisted-living facilities to 0.5 spaces per unit (current requirement is 0.75 spaces per unit). This more closely matches the actual parking utilization of these facilities, which are extremely low traffic generators. (pg. 145) The Proposed Zoning would require that AL facilities provide one-half off-street parking spaces per unit. In addition, as recognized by the Comprehensive Plan, the uses included in the Proposed Project, including the AL facility, are extremely low traffic generators. 3.1.3. Consistency of the Proposed Project with Other Public Policies Intent of PUD District The intent of the Village’s PUD district is to allow for a mix of uses within a single development that conserves natural resources and preserves open space, while providing the community with increased benefits, such as additional recreational opportunities and reduced traffic impact (§250-7E(1)). To accomplish this, the PUD district provides flexibility of design and coordination of site plan, subdivision, and zoning reviews. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 21 October 26, 2017 As demonstrated in this Technical Memorandum, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on natural resources (Sections 3.2, “Geography, Soils, Topography,” to 3.5, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” of this Memorandum) and would actually decrease the amount of impervious coverage and increase the amount of open space on the Project Site. In addition, an age-restricted community would generate less traffic resulting in fewer traffic impacts than re-occupancy of the on-Site office building (Section 3.10, “Traffic and Transportation,” of this Memorandum). Finally, the Proposed Project would provide the community with significant fiscal benefits in the form of increased property taxes, employment opportunities, and increased local consumer spending (see Section 2.5, “Anticipated Fiscal Benefits of the Project,” of this Memorandum). As such, the Proposed Project is consistent with the intent of the Village’s PUD Zoning District. Rye Brook’s Affordable Housing Policies The Village has adopted policies and zoning provisions that encourage the development of Fair and Affordable Housing. As discussed above, the Proposed Project is fully consistent with these policies and would be compliant with all zoning regulations with respect to the provision of affordable housing. Specifically, 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. Other Zoning and Site Plan Requirements Site Plan Review The Board of Trustees is the approval authority for all changes to the PUD zoning district, PUD Concept Plans, and PUD Site Plans and Subdivisions (§250-7E(4)). All applications for approval of a PUD are referred to the Village’s Planning Board for their review and recommendation. The first step in the PUD approval process is the approval of a PUD Concept Plan and Rezoning. The PUD Concept Plan and Petition for Rezoning for the 900 King Street Redevelopment have been submitted to the Village Board in accordance with the requirements of (§250-7E(4)(a)) (see Appendix A-2 and Appendix A-3). The Village’s Site Plan regulations (Chapter 209 of the Village Code) require the provision of affordable housing (§209-3F) and adequate parks and open space (§209- 14). As stated above, the Proposed Project would include 19 affordable units (10 percent of all dwelling units), as defined in §250-26.1D of the Village Code. With respect to the provisions of parks and open space, the consistency of the Proposed Project with §209-14 of the Site Plan regulations and §250-7E(2)(f) of the PUD regulations is discussed in Section 3.8.4, “Open Space,” of this Memorandum. The Village’s subdivision regulations require the consideration of the consistency of an application with the Westchester County Greenway Compact Plan (§219-4.1). The consistency of the Proposed Project with this plan is discussed in the section, “Applicable Policy Documents of Westchester County,” below. Applicable Policy Documents of Westchester County Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People In 1996, the Westchester County Planning Board developed and published a document entitled Patterns for Westchester: The Land and the People. This document provides a general policy framework for Westchester County’s review of local applications and 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 22 DRAFT major development proposals, defined as 50,000 sf or more of commercial floor area, or 25 or more housing units. Patterns for Westchester sets forth general policies for Westchester County’s involvement in local and regional land use planning. It recommends strategies to balance economic growth with a sound environment by directing growth to centers, reinventing developed corridors as multiuse places, and factoring open space elements into the development process. While Patterns for Westchester does not contain any specific recommendations for the Project Site, the Proposed Project is consistent with the main themes of the document. Specifically, the Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site with convenient access to transportation, rather than develop a “greenfield”; is consistent with the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan; provides affordable housing and housing options for seniors; and is protective of the character of the Village. Westchester 2025 Westchester 2025 is a county-wide planning effort that emphasizes the importance of regional planning and makes planning resources accessible to communities and their residents. As part of that effort, the 2025 Context for County and Municipal Planning and Policies to Guide County Planning was adopted by the Westchester County Planning Board in 2008 and amended in 2010. This document replaces and updates the “Assumptions and Policies” section of Patterns for Westchester with new principles and policies for development in Westchester County. Listed below are those principles from the 2025 Context that are most applicable to the Project Site and the Proposed Project, and a description of how the Proposed Project is consistent with those policies. The principles are provided below in italic type; consistency of the Proposed Project is evaluated below each principle and appears in plain type. Channel development to centers: Channel development whenever possible to centers where infrastructure can support growth, where public transportation can be provided efficiently and where redevelopment can enhance economic vitality. Development should be consistent with defined community character and be designed to facilitate or enhance a smart growth urban fabric. The Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site as opposed to developing a “greenfield.” Existing utility services and transportation systems would serve the Proposed Project and no extensions of public infrastructure would be required. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this policy. Preserve natural resources: Preserve and protect the county’s natural resources and environment, both physical and biotic. Potential impacts on water resources (water bodies, wetlands, coastal zones, and groundwater), significant land resources (unique natural areas, steep slopes, ridgelines and prime agricultural land) and biotic resources (critical habitat, plant communities and biotic corridors) require careful consideration as part of land management and development review and approval. The Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site as opposed to developing a “greenfield” and potentially altering significant natural habitat. The Project Site contains five wetlands and limited areas of steep slopes. As described more fully in Section 3.3, “Waters and Wetlands,” of this Memorandum, the Technical Memorandum DRAFT 23 October 26, 2017 Proposed Project would protect the five on-Site wetlands and the bugger for the largest wetland located on the Project Site would remain undisturbed. While encroachment to the other wetland buffers on-Site would be required, the disturbance has been minimized to the maximum extent practicable through project design. As such, through redevelopment of a previously developed site, rather than building on a greenfield, the Proposed Project is consistent with Westchester County’s policy of protecting natural resources. Westchester County Greenway Compact Plan The Village has adopted the Westchester County Hudson River Valley Compact Plan, The Greenprint for a Sustainable Future (§219-4.1). The Greenprint was prepared by the Westchester County Department of Planning and approved by the Hudson River Valley Greenway (HRVG) in 2005. Adoption of The Greenprint provides the Village the opportunity to pursue grant funding through the HRVG and ensures that SEQRA reviews consider Greenway principles in project evaluation. Consistent with the Hudson River Valley Greenway Act of 1991, The Greenprint provides five criteria for Greenway planning. Each criterion, and the consistency of the Proposed Project with that criterion, is presented below. Natural and Cultural Resource Protection As described in Sections 3.3, “Waters and Wetlands,” to 3.5, “Vegetation and Wildlife,” of this Memorandum, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant adverse impact to natural resources. Rather, the Proposed Project would redevelop an existing built site, decrease the amount of impervious coverage on the Site, and protect the on-Site wetlands and their buffers to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, as described in Section 3.6, “Cultural Resources,” of this Memorandum, the Proposed Project would have no adverse impact to historic or cultural resources. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this criterion. Regional Planning As described earlier in this section of the Memorandum, the Proposed Project is consistent with applicable regional planning policies, including the Village’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan and the planning documents of Westchester County. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this criterion. Economic Development The Proposed Project would return an underperforming site to productive use for the benefit of the Village, BBSD, and the owner, while protecting the natural resources and the existing character of the community. Therefore, the Proposed Project is consistent with this criterion. Public Access to Hudson River and Important Local Resources The Project Site is not adjacent to the Hudson River or an identified important local resource to which increased public access is needed. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the Proposed Project. Heritage and Environmental Education The Project Site is not adjacent to the Hudson River or an identified important local resource to which increased public access is needed nor is it the location of significant natural or cultural resources that could be used to enhance public education. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the Proposed Project. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 24 DRAFT 3.2. GEOGRAPHY, SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY 3.2.1. Soils AKRF, Inc. consulted the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey to identify the soil mapping units within the Project Site. Different soil units exhibit variable water storage, erosion potential, and other characteristics that could impact development. Table 7 contains a list of the soil mapping units located within the Project Site and their primary characteristics. The spatial arrangement of these soil types, as mapped by the NRCS Soils Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties (1994), is shown in Figure 7. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 25 October 26, 2017 Table 7 On-Site Soils Symbol Soil Series Name Percent of Site Depth to Restrictive Layer Drainage Characteristics ChB Charlton Fine Sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes <1% More than 80 Inches Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Permeability: Moderately slow to rapid (0.14 to 14.17 in/hr) Surface runoff: Low Water capacity: Moderate Hydrologic group: B PnB Praxton fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 6% 18 to 39 inches to bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: about 18 to 37 inches Permeability: Very slow to moderately slow (0.00 to 0.14 in/hr) Surface runoff: Medium Water capacity: Low Hydrologic group: C PnC Praxton fine sandy loam, 8 to15 percent slopes <1% 20 to 39 inches to bedrock Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: about 18 to 37 inches Permeability: Very slow to moderately slow (0.00 to 0.14 in/hr) Surface runoff: Medium Water capacity: Low Hydrologic group: C Uf Urban land 78% N/A* N/A* UhB Urban land-Charlton complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 2% More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Permeability: Moderate or moderately rapid (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Water capacity: Moderate UhC Urban land-Charlton complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes 6% More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Permeability: Moderate or moderately rapid (0.57 to 5.95 in/hr) Water capacity: Moderate WdB Woodbridge loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 6% 20 to 39 inches to bedrock Drainage class: Moderately well drained. Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Permeability: Slow to moderately slow (0.00 to 0.14 in/hr) Surface runoff: Very rapid Water capacity: Low Hydrologic group: C/D Note: *The variability of “Uf: Urban land” soil mapping units prevents the NRCS from publishing most soil parameters, including drainage class, hydrologic soil group, etc. Source: NRCS Soil Survey of Putnam and Westchester Counties, New York. Potential Impacts of Proposed Project The Proposed Project would result in the disturbance of the Urban land (Uf) soil type, with a small amount of disturbance to the Praxton fine sandy loam (PnB) soil type in the northeast corner of the Site as shown in Figure 7. The Proposed Project, through Site grading and excavation for foundations, is anticipated to excavate, or “cut,” approximately 42,600 cubic yards of earthen material and add, or “fill,” approximately 51,600 cubic yards of earthen material (see Table 8). Material excavated from 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 26 DRAFT the Site would be used as fill material, where appropriate. Excess earthen material would be removed from the Site by truck to an appropriate receiving facility. Similarly, additional material required for “fill” would be obtained from an appropriate facility. The potential impacts associated with the removal of this material are discussed in Section 3.14, “Construction,” of this Memorandum. Table 8 Cut-and-Fill Analysis Total Cut (cubic yards) Total Fill (cubic yards) Net Cut-and-Fill (cubic yards) ±42,600 ±51,600 ±9,000 cy net import Source: JMC Engineering. To reduce the potential for erosion of soils during construction, a SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) have been prepared (see Appendix C). The preliminary SWPPP is described in Section 3.4, “Stormwater Management,” of this Memorandum and the preliminary ESCP is described in Section 3.14, “Construction,” of this Memorandum. These plans include measures to prevent untreated stormwater runoff or sediments from leaving the Project Site during construction. These measures include: the installation of stabilized truck entrances and silt fencing. Prior to final Site Plan Approval, the Village will review and approve the final SWPPP and ESCP to ensure compliance with state and local regulations. With the implementation of the Village-approved SWPPP and ESCP, the Proposed Project would not be expected to have a significant adverse impact to on-Site soils. 3.2.2. Topography The Project Site is dominated by the gently sloping surface parking lot in the eastern and northern portion of the Site. The Project Site ranges in elevation (el.) from a low point of approximately 220 feet at the southeastern corner (Arbor Drive and King Street) to approximately 276 feet at the northwestern corner of the property (see Figure 8). The center of the Site contains an abrupt, human-made, rise in elevation from the relatively flat parking area to the east (~el. 246), to a higher plateau (~el. 260) to the west. This rise contains areas of steep slopes (see Figure 9). Areas of steep slopes also occur on the eastern portion of the Site around the existing stormwater basin (i.e., Wetland D) and Stream S to its south, the southern portion of the wooded area between the existing Site building and The Arbors, the northern boundary of the Site, and the Site’s frontage along King Street. The Village regulates steep slopes in Chapter 213 of the Village Code. Steep slopes are defined as a topographical gradient of 15 percent or greater with a minimum area of 100 sf. Steep slopes are further defined as a moderately steep slope (slope equal to or greater than 15 percent, but less than 25 percent), very steep slope (slope equal to or greater than 25 percent, but less than 35 percent), and extremely steep slopes (slope equal to or greater than 35 percent) (§213-2). Table 9 summarizes the overall slope conditions on the Project Site. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 27 October 26, 2017 Table 9 Steep Slopes Analysis Slopes Category Total Area (acres) Percent of Project Site Area of Disturbance <15% 14.90 85.9% 12.17 15–25% 1.33 7.7% 0.44 25–35% 0.96 4.0% 0.42 >35% 0.42 2.4% 0.14 Source: JMC Engineering. The Proposed Project would require approximately 13.17 acres of disturbance to the Site, much if not all of which has been previously disturbed. Of that disturbance, approximately 12.17 acre, or 92 percent, would occur within areas having a slope of less than 15 percent. Areas of steep slope impacted are primarily associated with the human-made slope in the center of the Site. Areas of steep slopes along the northern, western, and southeastern portion of the Project Site have been avoided. As described above, the Proposed Project includes a SWPPP and ECSP. The preliminary SWPPP is described in Section 3.4, “Stormwater Management,” of this Memorandum and the preliminary ECSP is described in Section 3.14, “Construction,” of this Memorandum. These plans include measures to minimize the erosion potential resulting from the disturbance of steep slopes. These measures include: minimizing steep slope impacts to the greatest extent possible and stabilizing soil on slopes with slope stabilization erosion control measures. With the implementation of these measures, the Proposed Project would not be expected to have a significant adverse impact to steep slopes. Because construction of the Proposed Project would require disturbance to 1.0 acre of slopes in excess of 15 percent, the Project would require a Steep Slope Work Permit pursuant to Chapter 213 of the Village Code. The Planning Board would be the approval authority for the permit (§213-7B) and a public hearing would be required (§213-10D) prior to final site plan approval. The Proposed Project would meet the requirements for granting a Steep Slope Work Permit, as defined in §213-10C. Specifically: • The steep slope disturbance can be completed without increasing the possibility of creep or sudden slope failure and would minimize the potential for erosion to the maximum extent practicable through the implementation of the previously described ECSP (§213-10C(2)); • The steep slope disturbance would not adversely affect existing wetlands, water bodies, or watercourses as the potential for increased sedimentation would be avoided through proper implementation of the Village-approved ECSP (§213-10C(3)); • The steep slope disturbance would not affect any wells or sewage disposal systems, nor would it adversely impact any threatened or endangered species as none are known to occur on or adjacent to the Project Site (§213-10C(4)); • The steep slope disturbance, and the Proposed Project more generally, is compatible with the public health and welfare (§213-10C(5)), as demonstrated throughout this Technical Memorandum; and, • The steep slope disturbance has been minimized to the maximum extent practical while balancing the need to avoid impacts to the Site’s wetlands (§213-10C(6)). 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 28 DRAFT 3.2.3. Other Geologic Features As noted by the EAF Mapper results, the Project Site contains no known unique geologic resources (see Appendix D-1). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on any unique geologic resource. 3.3. WATERS AND WETLANDS 3.3.1. Existing Conditions Wetlands On April 28, 2017, May 12, 2017, May 22-24, 2017, and September 12, 2017, AKRF, Inc. conducted wetland investigations and delineations of the Project Site in accordance with federal and Village standards. Five wetlands meeting the three requirements for wetland identification (hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology) were identified on the Project Site and are noted as Wetlands A, B, C, D, and E (see Figure 10 and sheet C-100). The methodology with which the investigations and delineations were conducted is described in the Wetland Delineation Report found in Appendix D-2. The soils, hydrology, and hydrophytic vegetation of each wetland were also documented by sampling points and are described in the Wetland Delineation Report. There are a total of 3.36 acres of delineated wetland on-Site. Wetland A (0.159 acres on-Site), located at the western side of the Site, is a forested wetland dominated by American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Wetland B (0.001 acres on-Site), located at the northwestern side of the Site, is predominantly an emergent wetland dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), with a woodland fringe dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum) and poison ivy. The emergent portion of this wetland is located almost entirely off-Site. Wetland C (0.006 acres on-Site), located within the northern portion of the Site, is a small forested wetland dominated by silver maple and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), poison ivy, and bishop’s goutweed (Aegopodium podagraria). Wetland D (0.185 acres on-Site), located at the eastern side of the Site, is an emergent wetland likely created as a stormwater basin. It is dominated by common reed. Wetland E (0.015 acres on-Site) is a small forested wetland located in the far northern corner of the site. Wetland E is dominated by green ash, silver maple, tatarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), and European privet (Ligustrum vulgare). This wetland demonstrates a high level of disturbance and fill. Wetland E continues northwest off-Site. Desktop analysis indicated that there are no National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)-mapped wetlands and no NYSDEC-mapped freshwater wetlands or streams within the Project Site. Surface Waters Surface water investigations identified two streams located on Site (see Figure 10). Stream A is associated with Wetland A, and runs southeast across the lawn in the southern corner of the Site and continues under Arbor Drive via a culvert. Stream S is associated with Wetland D, receiving flow via a culvert, flowing southeast through a vegetated meandering channel, and under Arbor Drive via a culvert. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 29 October 26, 2017 As noted in the EAF Mapper results for the Project Site, there are no principal or sole source aquifers within the Site (see Appendix D-1). Wetland and Watercourse Buffer Areas The Village regulates a wetland buffer area of 100 feet around a wetland or watercourse edge.4 As shown in Figure 10 and Table 10 below, the buffers around the existing delineated wetlands contain substantial amounts of disturbance, including impervious surfaces. In total, there are approximately 0.807 acres of existing impervious surface within the on-Site wetland buffer areas. Table 10 Proposed Changes to Wetland 100-foot Buffers On-Site Existing Buffer Area (acres) Existing Impervious in Buffer (acres) Proposed Impervious in Buffer (acres) Net Increase/Decrease Impervious in Buffer (acres) Wetland A 2.363 0.025 0.005 -0.020 Wetland B 0.389 0.101 0.206 0.105 Wetland C 0.504 0.000 0.164 0.164 Wetland D 1.444 0.530 0.283 -0.247 Wetland E 0.248 0.000 0.012 0.012 Stream A — 0.000 0.000 0.000 Stream S — 0.151 0.190 0.039 Total 0.807 0.860 0.053 Source: JMC Engineering 3.3.2. Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project will have no direct impact on any wetland or waterbody. In addition, as there are no principal or sole source aquifers within the Site, the Proposed Project will not adversely affect an existing aquifer. The Project Site’ wetlands are primarily the result of highway drainage and water management practices—pipes and basins—that, at present, exhibit low ecological diversity and low wetland functions. This is true for Wetlands B, C, D, E, and Stream S, which all derive from the discharge of drainage from the Hutchinson River Parkway or other on-Site/off-Site stormwater treatment practices and contain a significant amount of non-native or invasive species (phragmites, tatarian honeysuckle, etc.). On the western side of the Project Site, Wetland A and Stream A are less disturbed and not clearly the result of recent drainage improvements. By avoiding all direct wetland and stream disturbance, these drainages will be fully retained undisturbed by the Proposed Project. In addition, the Proposed Project consists of the redevelopment of a currently developed site, with a net reduction in overall impervious surface through the elimination of the large parking lot and office building that currently occupies the Site. Total disturbance during construction to 100-foot wetland and watercourse buffers on the Project Site would be 2.79 acres, of which 0.86 acres is existing impervious surface to be removed by the Proposed Project. The remainder of the 100-foot buffer disturbance would consist of disturbance to existing lawn and some wooded land along the northern periphery of the Site. Most important for determining impacts to wetland buffer functions is the net change in impervious surface. Impervious surfaces within wetland buffers offer no buffer functions as they lack all vegetation, prevent groundwater infiltration, and provide no wildlife habitat. As such, increases in 4 Village of Rye Brook Code. Chapter 245, Wetlands and Watercourses. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 30 DRAFT impervious surfaces within wetland buffer areas constitute a “net loss” of wetland buffer. By locating development primarily within the central, developed, portion of the Project Site, the net change in impervious surface within the 100-foot buffer has been limited to an increase of just 0.053 acres, as shown in Table 10. Approximately 0.807 acres of wetland buffer that currently consists of impervious surface (pavement/buildings) would be redeveloped. Approximately 0.32 acres (adjacent to Wetland B, C, and Stream S) of vegetated functional wetland buffer would be converted to impervious surface; however, approximately 0.267 acres of currently impervious wetland buffer (adjacent to wetlands A and D) would be restored to vegetated buffer, as discussed below under mitigation. By avoiding direct wetland disturbance and by minimizing wetland buffer disturbance to the maximum extent practicable, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the goals of the Village Code. Buffer functions to be preserved include water quality and enhancement of wetland flora/fauna. Furthermore, with redevelopment of this currently developed Site, the Proposed Project would provide additional stormwater detention and treatment resulting in a net reduction in stormwater runoff as compared to the current condition, to the benefit of the Site’s wetlands and downstream receiving waters. (See Section 3.4, “Stormwater Management”). Impacts to the on-Site wetland and watercourse buffers require a permit from the Village Planning Board. The disturbance to these buffers from the Proposed Project is consistent with the criteria for granting a wetland/buffer permit contained in §245-8(A) of the Village Code: • Wetland hydrology: The Proposed Project would avoid interference with existing wetland hydrology and wetland water circulation. The Site’s five wetlands occur around the periphery of the Project Site; therefore, redevelopment of the interior of the Project Site would not change wetland water circulation or hydrologic inputs to the Site’s wetlands. • Wetland flora and fauna: By avoiding direct disturbance to all wetlands, impacts to wetland flora/fauna are avoided. The Proposed Project would limit disturbance to natural vegetation by keeping development within the previously developed portions of the Site with the exception of minimal tree clearing for the loop drive and emergency access drive. All landscape plantings will be native species and will include revegetation (enhancement) of portions of the existing lawn within the wetland buffers, as discussed below under mitigation. • Endangered species: There are no New York State-listed or federally listed threatened, endangered, rare, or special concern plant or animal species on the Project Site, as discussed in Section 3.5 below. • Public health, safety, and welfare: Wetland functions will be retained on the Project Site for the benefit of public health, safety, and welfare. This will be achieved principally by reducing overall imperious surface coverage on-Site and increasing the treatment of stormwater runoff. • Sedimentation and turbidity: The Proposed Project would prevent the influx of sediments and other pollutants to the Site’s wetlands/waters by treating all runoff from the Proposed Project in a new stormwater management system that would significantly improve treatment and result in reduced post-construction runoff rates, in accordance with NYSDEC GP-0-15-002. See Section 3.4 of this Memorandum, “Stormwater Management.” • Influx of toxic chemicals or thermal changes: The Proposed Project would avoid the release of toxic or heavy metals through the construction of the proposed stormwater management system. The stormwater management system would remove such pollutants through sediment settling and absorption/adsorption. Thermal changes to wetland water supply would be avoided by reducing the amount of impervious surface on the overall site by 0.28 acres, which will increase stormwater infiltration and minimize the potential for thermal impacts. In Technical Memorandum DRAFT 31 October 26, 2017 addition, the stormwater management plan will utilize sub-surface runoff storage that would similarly avoid the thermal impacts associated with surface detention ponds. • Cumulative effects: The cumulative effects of the Proposed Project would not affect or jeopardize any off-Site/downstream wetlands because the Proposed Project’s stormwater management plan and landscaping plan will prevent degradation of stormwater runoff and would use native plants to improve vegetation diversity on the Project Site. 3.3.3. Mitigation Measures The Village generally requires that disturbance to a wetland/watercourse buffer be mitigated (§245-9). For purposes of calculating the mitigation that may be required, the Applicant has assumed that the net conversion of pervious to impervious cover within the wetland/watercourse buffer (0.053 acres) would require mitigation. At a ratio of 2:1, as required by §245-9A(3), to compensate for the 0.053 acres of wetland buffer loss, a total of 0.106 acres of wetland buffer that are currently in an unvegetated or poorly vegetated condition (i.e. pavement and lawn) would be restored and enhanced through the planting of native facultative wetland trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants. In this way, on-Site buffer functions will be enhanced as compared to the existing condition. The Applicant has identified over 1 acre of areas within the wetland buffer that could be restored or enhanced as part of the buffer mitigation program (see Figure 11). These areas include approximately 22,400 sf around the existing stormwater pond (Wetland D) and Stream S, approximately 8,500 sf within the buffer for Wetlands B and C; and, approximately 14,500 sf to the east of Wetland A. A final wetland buffer mitigation plan that identifies the specific areas of the Site to be restored, as well as the planting schedule and details for the restoration, would be prepared during site plan approval. 3.4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The Project Site generally slopes, and surface water runoff generally flows, from north to south. An existing detention basin (also identified as Wetland D) is located along the east side of the Project Site. This basin receives stormwater runoff from the existing building and parking lot, as well as runoff from adjacent Village properties to the east. Stormwater runoff exits the detention basin and is discharged to the municipal drainage system below Arbor Drive, through Harkness Park, and then along the Blind Brook High School driveway to King Street. The Proposed Project would redevelop the Project Site into an age-restricted residential community. The redevelopment would result in a decrease in the amount of impervious area on the Project Site. In order to manage stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project, the Applicant’s engineer prepared a SWPPP in accordance with Chapter 9: “Redevelopment Projects” of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual and other applicable regulations (see Appendix C). 5 The stormwater management system for the Proposed Project includes standard stormwater practices, including vegetated swales, subsurface infiltration systems, and improvements to the existing stormwater detention basin. To accommodate an increase in the Site’s main drainage as a result of proposed Site grading and layout, the existing stormwater detention basin would be slightly expanded. In addition to this slight expansion, the Proposed 5 Applicable stormwater requirements are found in the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit No. GP-0-15-002, effective January 29, 2015, last modified November 23, 2016, the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, last revised January 2015 and Chapter 217 "Stormwater Management" of the Village Zoning Code. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 32 DRAFT Project would enhance the functionality of this basin area by removing overgrown and dead vegetation, debris, etc. The Project Site does not currently have any stormwater practices with infiltration to provide water quality and runoff reduction. The SWPPP for the Proposed Project, however, includes practices that enhance water quality and provide runoff reduction volume through infiltration. Infiltration measures include the grasscrete paver emergency drive, vegetated swales, and disconnected impervious areas throughout the Site. These practices will result in additional infiltration that was not considered in the SWPPP’s hydrologic model, resulting in a conservative analysis presented in the SWPPP. As summarized above, and presented in more detail in Appendix C, the Proposed Project utilizes a variety of practices to enhance stormwater quality and reduce peak rates of runoff associated with the Project Site. With the implementation of the SWPPP, runoff volumes would be reduced in all the analyzed storms from the existing condition. As implementation of the SWPPP would provide water quantity and quality enhancements that exceed the regulatory requirements, stormwater runoff from the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the Project Site or surrounding area. 3.5. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 3.5.1. Habitat Existing Conditions of the Project Site The Project Site contains a highly developed interior with continuous impervious surface and little vegetation aside from maintained lawn and a mixed deciduous hardwood forested perimeter. Specifically, the Project Site contains 7.28 acres of impervious surface and 10.05 acres of pervious surface, which consists of 3.7 forested acres and 6.8 acres of lawn (see Table 11). Habitat value in the center of the Site is extremely low. Habitat value in the perimeter is higher due to its connectivity to surrounding forested areas, its ability to act as a forested corridor, and the presence of wetlands. However, due to the narrowness of these forested areas, little forest interior is available as habitat for less generalist wildlife species. A list of vegetative species observed on-Site during reconnaissance visits by AKRF is provided in Appendix D-3. Table 11 Habitats of the Project Site Habitat Existing Acreage Proposed Acreage Change (acres) Impervious 7.28 7.00 - 0.28 Forested 3.70 2.76 - 0.94 Lawn 6.79 8.01 + 1.22 Total 17.77 17.77 — Note: Forested and lawn habitats include acreage for forested and emergent wetlands respectively Source: JMC Engineering. Maintained Lawn with Ornamental Trees The existing office building and associated parking, as well as the corridor that abuts The Arbors, are surrounded by maintained lawn with ornamentals. Ornamentals include flowering cherry trees (Prunus spp.) and Norway spruce (Picea abies), among other imported tree varieties. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 33 October 26, 2017 Mixed Deciduous Hardwood Continuous, but narrow, areas of mature forest exist on the northern perimeter of the Site, adjacent to the right-of-way for the Hutchinson River Parkway, and within the southeastern-most corner of the Site adjacent to King Street and Arbor Drive. These deciduous hardwood areas consist of: poorly drained areas at the northeastern-most corner of the Project Site, which is dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica); well-drained areas in the southern-most corner of the Project Site, which is dominated by red oak (Quercus rubra), and Norway maple (Acer platanoides); and, the sloped areas to the northwest, consisting of red oak and American linden (Tilia Americana). Forested Wetlands As discussed in Section 3.3, “Waters and Wetlands,” three forested wetlands exist on-Site. Species composition within these forested wetlands demonstrates soil disturbance, which is evidenced by invasive shrub species, such as multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and common privet (Ligustrum vulgare), and a native tree canopy dominated by silver maple, green ash, and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). Emergent Wetlands As discussed in Section 3.3, “Waters and Wetlands,” two emergent wetlands occur on-Site and are dominated by common reed (Phragmites australis), an invasive emergent species. These wetlands provide little habitat for native wildlife populations. Impervious Surface The Project Site currently contains more than 41 percent (7.28 acres) impervious surface, including buildings and parking lot. Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project would decrease the amount of impervious surface on-Site by 0.28 acres, which would be made up of an increase in pervious lawn area of 1.22 acres, and a decrease in forested area of 0.94 acres (see Table 11). As discussed more fully below, this change in habitat coverage would not be considered a significant adverse impact owing to the relatively low quality of the existing on-Site habitat and the overall decrease in impervious coverage on the Site. 3.5.2. Wildlife The Project Site does not provide high quality habitat for wildlife due to the high level of on-Site and surrounding development and the lack of any sizable areas of undeveloped wooded land. As such, wildlife expected to occur on-Site would include urban tolerant species such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis). As habitat for these species would continue to be available on the Project Site after construction of the Proposed Project as well as on immediately adjacent properties, the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in an adverse impact on wildlife. The results of the EAF mapper for the Project Site and the IPaC report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicates that there are no known rare, threatened, or endangered species, or species of special concern located within or adjacent to the Project Site (see Appendix D-1). In addition, the EAF Mapper states that no known significant natural communities are present within 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 34 DRAFT or adjacent to the Project Site. No New York State-listed or federally listed plants or animals were observed on-Site during the wetland delineation and tree survey. The Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact on rare, threatened, or endangered species, or species of special concern, nor would it have an adverse impact on significant natural communities. 3.5.3. Trees In accordance with Chapter 235 of the Village of Rye Brook Code, JMC Engineering and AKRF, Inc. inventoried trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh). A total of 671 trees 6 inches dbh and greater were identified on-Site and an additional 11 trees 6 inches dbh or greater were identified off-Site in the vicinity of the proposed emergency access drive. Forty-five of the trees inventoried on-site are 30-inch dbh or greater and are therefore considered Significant Trees, in accordance with Village Code. As shown on sheets C-130 and C-131, as well as Appendix D-4, the inventory notes species, size, and condition, for trees that may be disturbed by the Proposed Project. Condition, which evaluated both tree health (roots, trunk, branches, and foliage) and structure, was calculated on a scale of 1 to 10. For each tree within the limit of disturbance, AKRF’s certified arborist evaluated whether the species is less desirable (Norway maple) or invasive (tree of heaven). Dominant species on-Site include: red oak, Norway maple, and Norway spruce. The Proposed Project will require the removal of approximately 131 trees with a dbh of 10 inches or greater. Six of these trees (Trees #338, 408, 436, 543, 591, and 686) are considered significant by the Village Code. Section 235-18 of the Village Code requires that native, non-invasive trees with a dbh of two- to two-and-one-half-inch dbh be planted on-Site to mitigate the proposed removal of trees with a dbh of 10 inches or greater. Removed trees with a dbh of 10 to 24 inches require the planting of one tree; removed trees with a dbh of 25 to 36 inches require the planting of two trees; removed trees with a dbh of 37 to 48 inches require the planting of three trees; and removed trees with a dbh of 49 inches or greater require the planting of four trees. Based on this formula, the Proposed Project would be required to plant at least 146 native, non-invasive two- to two-and-one-half-inch caliper trees on-Site. A preliminary planting plan has been developed that proposes to plant 425 new trees and 288 new shrubs. At least 212 of the 425 trees proposed to be planted would meet the requirements of §235-18 as mitigation for the proposed removal of on-Site trees. All trees would be installed in accordance with the Village’s planting guidelines.6 For on-Site trees proposed to remain, a tree protection plan will be developed during site plan approval for review and approval by the Village. This plan would be designed and implemented in accordance with the Village of Rye Brook’s tree protection guidelines.7 Specifically, this plan would identify trees designated for protection and would include: specifications for installation of protection fencing, directives for root pruning, tunnelling, and use of root curtains where applicable. With the implementation of the Village-approved Tree Protection Plan, no significant adverse impact to trees proposed to remain on-Site is anticipated. 6 Village of Rye Brook Attachment 235-1 PLANTING GUIDELINES FOR TREES AND SHRUBS 7 Village of Rye Brook Attachment 235-2 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES Technical Memorandum DRAFT 35 October 26, 2017 3.6. CULTURAL RESOURCES 3.6.1. Introduction and Methodology This section considers the potential of the Proposed Project to affect cultural resources, which include both archaeological and architectural resources. Officially recognized historic resources (“known resources”) include: National Historic Landmarks (NHLs); resources previously listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places (S/NR); resources formally determined eligible for such listing (S/NR-eligible); resources or contained within a historic district listed on or formally determined eligible for listing on the Registers; and resources recommended by the New York State Board for listing on the Registers. Potential resources are undesignated properties that appear to meet S/NR eligibility criteria in the study area. The study area for the Proposed Project includes the area within approximately 400 feet of the Project Site (see Figure 12). Because the Proposed Project requires the preparation of a SWPPP, the Proposed Project is subject to compliance with the January 2015 Letter of Resolution (LOR) executed among NYSDEC and New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). As such, this analysis has been prepared in accordance with SEQRA and Section 14.09 of the State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA). These laws and regulations require that state agencies consider the impacts of their actions on historic properties. Archaeological resources may be impacted by excavation and construction activities. The study area for archaeological resources is the Project Site itself where disturbance from excavation and construction can be anticipated. Effects on architectural resources can include both direct physical impacts and indirect impacts. Direct impacts include physical damage from construction related impacts, such as vibration and falling objects. In addition, physical destruction, alteration, demolition, or neglect of all or parts of a historic property are considered potential impacts to architectural resources. Indirect impacts on architectural resources are visual or contextual impacts that could result from the construction of a project or its operation. These impacts could result from blocking public views of a resource; isolating a resource from its setting or visual relationship to the streetscape; altering the resources setting; introducing incompatible visual, audible, or atmospheric elements to a resource’s setting; or introducing shadows, or lengthening their duration over a historic landscape or resource with sunlight-sensitive features (e.g., a church with stained glass windows). Therefore, the study area for architectural resources has been defined to account for any potential impacts that may occur where proposed construction activities could physically alter architectural resources or be close enough to them to potentially cause physical damage and also to account for potential visual or contextual impacts. The study area for the Proposed Project includes the area within approximately 400 feet of the Project Site (see Figure 12). 3.6.2. Existing Conditions Archaeological Resources The NYSDEC EAF Mapper, queried on January 30, 2017, stated that the Project Site was not within an area of known archaeological sensitivity. Subsequently, in a letter dated September 26, 2017, OPRHP determined that there are no archaeological concerns for the Project Site or study area (see Appendix E-1). Therefore, the Proposed Project would not adversely impact archaeological resources. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 36 DRAFT Architectural Resources of the Project Site There are no known or potential architectural resources on the Project Site. The Project Site features an underutilized commercial building with a surface parking lot (see Figure 12). Architectural Resources of the Study Area A field survey of the study area was conducted to identify any known and potential architectural resources. The Merritt Parkway was identified as a known architectural resource in the study area. Additionally, a potential architectural resource was identified at 942 King Street (see Figure 12). Known Architectural Resources The Merritt Parkway (S/NR) district, located approximately 390 feet from the Project Site, is located along Connecticut State Highway Route 15 between the New York State border at King Street in Greenwich, CT and the western edge of the Housatonic River Bridge in Stratford, CT. Constructed between 1934 and 1942, the Parkway was built to relieve congestion along Boston Post Road (U.S. Route 1), the primary route in and out of New England from the 17th to the early 20th century (see Figure 13). The Parkway features bridges of Classical Revival, Colonial Revival, and Modernist Movement design, as well as landscaping that serves to connect the Parkway to its natural surroundings.8 Potential Architectural Resources 942 King Street is located along King Street, just north of the Rye Brook Firehouse, facing east towards the Connecticut border. Built circa 1900, the Colonial style home sits approximately 110 feet from the Project Site, set back on its property away from King Street.9 Finished with white clapboard siding, the east façade (front façade) features a partial octagonal first floor porch supported by elegantly decorated columns and a white banister (see Figure 13). The front façade is symmetrically fenestrated with a third story cupola topped with a finial. The home features a gabled roof comprised of asphalt shingles. Green shrubbery and trees highlight the home. An addition was made to the property in 1982, which included a family room, bedrooms, and fireplace.10 However, the addition was made at the rear of the property, with the street façade retaining it character-defining features and appearance. 3.6.3. Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project Direct Impacts The known and potential architectural resources within the study area are located at least 110 feet from the Project Site, and are at too great a distance to be potentially affected by construction-related activities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an adverse direct impact on architectural resources in the study area. 8 Merritt Parkway, Fairfield County, Connecticut. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. No. 91000410, NPS Form. March 1991. 9 942 King Street. Property Assessment Record—Town of Rye, New York. 1993. 10 Ibid. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 37 October 26, 2017 Indirect Impacts The Proposed Project would not obstruct public views to the known and potential architectural resources within the study area. There is no visual or physical relationship between the Merritt Parkway and the Project Site due to distance and dense surrounding vegetation, and this relationship would not change with the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not affect views to 942 King Street, as it would be located behind this potential resource that fronts on King Street. Although the Proposed Project would include the removal of some vegetation and the creation of an emergency access from the Project Site to the Rye Brook Firehouse’s existing parking lot, the context of the potential architectural resource would not be adversely impacted by the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would introduce buildings that are similar in height to the existing commercial building on the Project Site. The Proposed Project would not introduce incompatible visual, audible, or atmospheric elements to the resources’ setting, nor would they isolate the resources from their relationship with the streetscape. Finally, the Proposed Project would not introduce shadows over a historic landscape or an architectural resource with sun-sensitive features. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an adverse indirect impact on architectural resources in the study area. 3.7. VISUAL RESOURCES AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER 3.7.1. Existing On-Site Visual Character This section describes current views of the Project Site both from within the Project Site and from adjacent locations (see Figure 14). As described below, the Project Site is dominated by a large-footprint three-story white concrete office building and vast surface parking lot. Areas of mature vegetation along the northern and eastern periphery buffer its visibility from adjacent properties. The western portion of the Site is dominated by a large wooded area, containing a wetland and a stream, which provides a visual buffer between the interior of the Project Site and the townhouses to the west. Location A: Wetland/Vegetative Buffer along the Project Site’s Western Property Line Location A is located within the westernmost section of the Project Site (see Figure 14). From this location, the view is of tall, lush trees (deciduous and coniferous) and shrubbery that have grown on all sides of a raised berm such that areas to the east (i.e., the interior of the Project Site) are not visible (see Figure 15). A small portion of maintained lawn on the Project Site, seen in the foreground, is used by adjacent residents. The existing three-story building on the Project Site is thoroughly screened by dense vegetation. Location B: Existing Building from Arbor Drive looking East Location B is located on Arbor Drive at the service driveway to the existing building at 900 King Street. Looking north towards the Project Site from this location, the view of the interior of the Project Site and the existing building provides a stark contrast between the expansive lawn and the monolithic, white office building (see Figure 15). The expansive lawn was created as a result of the building’s deep setback from Arbor Drive. Beyond the building and parking lot, mature trees have grown around the perimeter of the Site. Location C: Existing Building from Arbor Drive looking West Location C is located on Arbor Drive between the main Site and service driveways to 900 King Street. Looking west from this location toward the Project Site, the stark contrast between the lawn and the existing office building dominates the view (see Figure 16). A few 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 38 DRAFT small trees and bushes adjacent to the existing building soften the appearance of the existing concrete and glass structure; however, the span of the building beyond these trees continues to dominate the views of the Project Site. Due to a change in elevation, the service driveway to the existing building, which is located at a lower elevation than the lawn, is not visible. Beyond the service driveway, the yard slopes upward towards the vegetated section of the Site described for Location A. Location D: Front of Existing Building from Parking Lot Location D is located on the interior of the Project Site, towards the center of the existing parking lot. Looking west from this location toward the existing building, the foreground is dominated by an expansive parking lot (see Figure 16). From this location, looking westward across the flat parking lot, the existing post-modern style building dominates the landscape. The fascia that extends several feet above the top floor makes the building appear taller than three stories. Location E: Existing Parking Lot Location E is located on the interior of the Project Site, directly east of the main site driveway. The view of the parking lot from this location runs parallel to the existing building frontage (see Figure 17). This viewpoint was chosen to show the expansive and underutilized parking lot. Several tall light poles are located throughout the parking lot. A single planted median running parallel to the building and two planted islands to the east of the median toward the interior of the parking lot provide the only break in the parking lot and provide little to no shading for this area. Location F: Existing Parking Lot Location F is located on the interior of the Project Site. Location F is along a similar sight path of the Project Site as Location E, but is located further north. A few large lamp poles rise tall from the flat parking lot and contain large-format spot lights (see Figure 17). A planted median creates a small visual break in the vast parking lot. In the background, a thick and mature wooded area at the perimeter of the parking lot blocks views beyond the bounds of the Project Site. Location G: Project Site’s Eastern Property Line Location G is located approximately 140 feet east of the main Site driveway to 900 King Street. This viewpoint was chosen to show the dense vegetative barrier at the Project Site’s eastern property line, which blocks views to the exterior of the Project Site (see Figure 18). This vegetative barrier is composed of young and mature coniferous and deciduous trees. The cell tower located on the Village Hall property to the east of the Project Site is visible above the tops of the trees. Location H: Vegetative Buffer Along the Project Site’s Northern Property Line Location H is the northernmost vantage point, located at the corner of the Project Site’s northern and eastern property lines (see Figure 14). Looking westward, the view from this location runs parallel to a thick vegetative barrier along the Project Site’s northern property line (see Figure 18). The trees that compose the barrier are mature and tall. North of the vegetative barrier and the Project Site’s northern property line is the Hutchinson River Parkway. The Parkway cannot be seen through the thick vegetative barrier from this location or other locations along the northern property line. South of the vegetative buffer is an area of maintained lawn, which dominates the view from this vantage point. Towards the background, the flat parking lot is dotted with young and almost bare trees. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 39 October 26, 2017 Location I: Existing Parking Lot and Building Location I is located near the northern property line, approximately 500 feet east of the western property line. This location is located at a higher elevation than the parking lot below. There is a portion of the parking lot that is at the same elevation as this vantage point, and stairs were installed for people to walk down to the lower level. The parking lot dominates the view in both the foreground and the background (see Figure 19). Due to the distance, the medians described in Locations E and F are barely visible amid the asphalt field. In the foreground, a concrete sidewalk provides a walking path through the lawn. Runoff from the sidewalk has caused pooling in the lawn in the foreground. 3.7.2. Proposed On-Site Visual Character The Proposed Project would transform the on-Site visual character from one of a Site dominated by a large surface parking area and rectangular three-story office building to a landscaped campus featuring several different uses, building sizes, and building types. While the Proposed Project would reduce the amount of impervious coverage on the Site, it is the Proposed Project’s redistribution of the pervious and impervious area within the Site that has the most dramatic effect on the Site’s visual character. In its current condition, the Site’s building and parking lot are contiguous masses of impervious surface. The Proposed Project, on the other hand, has broken up the buildings’ massing and location, thereby creating areas of landscaping and natural cover interspersed with buildings and driveways. The result is a Site that would be perceived at a more human scale with the development of the Proposed Project. The extensive vegetative buffer around the Site’s perimeter would be maintained. As a result, the interior of the Project Site would not be visible from locations off-Site, but only from a short area along Arbor Drive, as described more fully in Section 3.7.4, below. These buffers would also restrict most views out from the interior of the Project Site. The IL building would be the most prominent when viewed from Arbor Drive. The southeastern corner of the IL building would be approximately 115 feet from Arbor Drive. As previously described, this portion of the building would be three stories and would feature a gabled roof. As shown on the Preliminary Site Plan, sections, and elevations, the two southern wings have been redesigned from the original concept plan proposed. Specifically, instead of the wings extending diagonally southeast and west, they have been shortened, terminating in a smaller building mass that presents the proportions of a three-story home towards Arbor Drive. The entire front two wings of the building have been reduced to three stories, terminating against the rear, 4-story portion of the building. These three-story wings, placed symmetrically along the main building’s east/west axis, break down the perceived effective length of the buildings. The northern portion of the IL building, beginning at the main entrance, is set back approximately 290 feet from Arbor Drive; or another 175 feet from the front façade. This portion of the building rises to four stories. However, as shown in the photosimulations below, the perceived height of this portion of the building is significantly diminished owing to the distance from Arbor Drive. The main Site driveway would be 26-feet wide and feature two-way traffic. The drive would be landscaped along its edges with new trees and shrubs, and would feature a wide sidewalk along its entire length. The western portion of the developed area of the Site would feature two and two-and-a-half story townhouse units. These units would mirror the character of the off-Site townhouses further to the west in The Arbors. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 40 DRAFT 3.7.3. Visibility of Project Site Eight vantage points have been identified from which to assess the visibility and the significance of the visibility of the Proposed Project (see Figure 20). This section describes the results of this analysis. The potential significance of the changes in visibility as a result of the Proposed Project is evaluated using the thresholds established by the New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC), specifically that “mere visibility, even startling visibility of a project proposal, should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead, a project, by virtue of its visibility, must clearly interfere with or reduce the public’s enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance of an inventoried resource.”11 To evaluate the potential visual and aesthetic impacts of the Proposed Project, a three-dimensional computer model of the Proposed Project was created to represent the massing of the proposed buildings. The model was then superimposed on photographs taken from each vantage point. It is important to note that the representational massings included for vantage points 1–3 and 5–8 are not architectural renderings of the proposed buildings; rather, they are illustrative of the maximum visibility of the proposed buildings. In addition, the photo simulations do not show elements of the proposed landscaping program. For vantage points 4 and 4a, the three-dimensional massing model was used to properly locate the proposed buildings on the Site and in relation to the existing condition. Using this locational information, the project architect, Perkins Eastman, prepared renderings of the Proposed Project using the architectural modeling program, Revit. Vantage Point 1: Lawn Area on the Project Site between The Arbors Residences and the Wetland/Wooded Area Vantage point 1 is located within the westernmost section of the Project Site (see Figure 20). This area was chosen to represent the maximum potential view of the Proposed Project from The Arbors, a townhouse community to the west of the Project Site. Specifically, this vantage point was chosen due to its proximity to an area where the vegetation separating the Project Site and The Arbors is sparser, as the bushes have not reached the bottom branches of the trees, and therefore the roofline of the existing building is visible. Looking towards the Project Site from the rear of the northernmost residences of The Arbors, which directly abut, and in some cases encroach onto, the Project Site, the view of the Project Site and the existing three-story building is screened by dense vegetation (see Figure 21). Within the vegetation is a raised berm. Tall, lush trees (deciduous and coniferous) and shrubbery have grown on all sides of the berm obscuring the view from the west to the interior of the Project Site. In an area where the existing building is visible from the west, the intervening distance and the topography significantly minimize its visibility. As with the existing condition, the buildings of the Proposed Project would be almost completely screened from this vantage point, with only a small portion of the roof visible through a small clearing in the existing vegetation. This change in visibility would be barely noticeable and would not result in a significant adverse visual impact. Vantage Point 2: King Street, South of Arbor Drive and North of the High School driveway Vantage point 2 is located on King Street, south of Arbor Drive and north of the high school driveway (see Figure 20). Looking west towards the Project Site from this vantage point, the view of the interior of the Project Site and the existing building is substantially screened by 11 “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts.” DEP-00-2 Technical Memorandum DRAFT 41 October 26, 2017 existing on- and off-Site vegetation (see Figure 22). The expansive open space of Harkness Park dominates the view. The mature oak and maple trees along the perimeter of the Park and the Project Site block views of the existing Site building from this location on King Street. The Proposed Project’s buildings would not be visible from this vantage point. Vantage Point 3: Harkness Park Vantage point 3 is located southeast of the Project Site within Harkness Park (see Figure 20). From within Harkness Park, where the elevation is higher and distance to the Project Site is less than that of vantage point 2, the existing on-Site building is visible, but is significantly screened by the on-Site vegetation (see Figure 23). The view from this vantage point is dominated by Arbor Drive, the open space along that road’s frontage, and the existing Site trees; however, it is clear that beyond this screening is a developed site. Between this vantage point and the Project Site the land elevation rises from Arbor Drive and then falls again to the north obscuring the view of the existing parking lot. From this vantage point, the buildings of the Proposed Project would be visible through the existing vegetation along Arbor Drive. The southeastern portion of the IL building would be closer to this vantage point than the existing on-Site building. However, the existing vegetation, combined with the landscaping program proposed for the Project, would screen much of the building’s visibility from this location. As such, the view of the Project Site with the Proposed Project from this vantage point would be substantially similar to the existing condition; that is, it would be a view of a developed site, including buildings and parking, that is significantly screened by existing vegetation. This change in visibility would not result in a significant adverse visual impact. Vantage Point 4a: Arbor Drive between the Main Site and Service Driveways to 900 King Street Vantage point 4a is located along Arbor Drive, just east of the current main Site driveway (see Figure 20). The interior of the Project Site is most visible from Arbor Drive, which is a private road serving The Arbors and the Project Site. Looking northwest from this vantage point, the existing Site building is plainly visible (see Figure 24). The manicured lawn, along with low-height landscaping and small, ornamental trees, frames the view of the building, which otherwise dominates this view. The building’s stark and monolithic architecture are the defining characteristic of the Site from this vantage point. With the Proposed Project, the view from this vantage point would be of the three-story portion of the IL building beyond the main Site driveway and the landscaped center island. The IL building would feature the architectural characteristics of residential construction within the Village. Various façade treatments, including stone, brick, and clapboard would be used to break down the perceived scale of the building. Similarly, several roof treatments would be utilized, including gables, flat roofs with decorative railings, and dormers. The view of the Project Site from this vantage point would be markedly different than the view in the current condition. Instead of a view dominated by a long, monolithic building, the Proposed Project would have the appearance of a traditional early 20th century apartment village oriented around a central entry court. The new buildings would be consistent with the residential character of the Village, both in terms of scale and architecture. Building materials and sizes would be varied and areas of landscaped lawn would be interspersed throughout the Site, resulting in a more human scale development. Therefore, while the visibility of the 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 42 DRAFT Project Site from this vantage point would be different, the Proposed Project would not create a significant adverse visual impact. Vantage Point 4b: Arbor Drive between the Main Site and Service Driveways to 900 King Street Vantage point 4b is located along Arbor Drive, just west of the current main Site driveway (see Figure 20). Looking north from this vantage point, the view is dominated by the vast surface parking lot to the right and the existing building to the left (see Figure 25). The parking lot is partially screened by short, ornamental trees in the foreground. The interior of the parking lot contains minimal landscaping to divide the parking rows and features tall light poles throughout. The existing three-story building dominates the view to the left. The building features tall fascia panels along its entire frontage, extending from the top of its roof. From this vantage point, the uniformity of the building’s architecture, both in terms of shape and façade, is evident. From this vantage point, the three- and four-story portions of the IL building would be visible beyond the center planted island and main Site driveway with the Proposed Project. As with the view from vantage point 4a, the architectural character of the IL building would evoke the traditional residential character of the Village. The various horizontal steps of the building and the varied roof styles used would significantly break down the perceived mass of the building when viewed from this vantage point. The four-story portion of the IL building, set back approximately 290 feet from Arbor Drive, would be perceived as a similar scale as the three-story portion of the building that is closer to Arbor Drive. As with the view from vantage point 4a, the view of the Project Site from this vantage point, 4b, would be markedly different than the view in the current condition. Instead of a view of a wide expanse of a surface parking and a monolithic building, the proposed buildings would be perceived at a more human scale. Areas of landscaped lawn, along with varied façade and roof styles and the variation in building orientation, would break down the perceived massing of the Project when viewed from Arbor Drive. The new buildings would be consistent with the residential character of the Village, both in terms of scale and architecture. Therefore, while the visibility of the Project Site from this vantage point would be different, the Proposed Project would not create a significant adverse visual impact. Vantage Point 5: King Street in the Vicinity of the Driveway to Village Hall Vantage point 5 is located along King Street, just south of the driveway to Village Hall (see Figure 20). The location of this vantage point was chosen as the only location where potential visibility of the interior of the Project Site would not be blocked by Village Hall and the firehouse or the thick vegetation along the Site’s King Street frontage. The existing building on the Project Site is not visible from this vantage point due to the rise and subsequent fall in elevation between this vantage point the Project Site, as well as the existing on- and off-Site intervening vegetation (see Figure 26). The sloped, grassy area along King Street provides a natural barrier to views of the existing building from this vantage point. From this vantage point, the peak of the roof of the three-story portion of the IL building would be visible through and above the existing vegetation with the Proposed Project. This change in visibility would be modest and would likely be unnoticed by motorists along King Street. As discussed above, the roofline and the façade of the building would be in keeping with the residential architectural character of the Village. Therefore, this slight change in visibility would not create a significant adverse impact to visual resources or community Technical Memorandum DRAFT 43 October 26, 2017 character. In addition, this would be the only location along King Street where the Proposed Project would be visible. Vantage Point 6: North Ridge Street at Exit 27S of the Hutchinson River Parkway Vantage point 6 is located along North Ridge Street, at the Exit 27S interchange of the southbound Hutchinson River Parkway (see Figure 20). This is the only location along North Ridge Street where there is a break in the existing vegetation between North Ridge Street and the Parkway. Looking southwest from this vantage point in the direction of the Project Site, the view is dominated by the Hutchinson River Parkway in the foreground (see Figure 27). In the background, between the Hutchinson River Parkway and the interior of the Project Site is a thick band of deciduous and coniferous trees. These mature trees completely block views of the existing Site building from vantage point 6. The Proposed Project’s buildings would not be visible from this vantage point. Vantage Point 7: Village Hall Parking Lot Vantage point 7 is located northeast of the Project Site, within the Village Hall parking lot (see Figure 20), along a similar sight path to the Project Site as vantage point 5, but at a slightly higher elevation. The view from this vantage point looking towards the existing building on the Project Site is dominated by young trees, grass, and landscaping on the Village Hall site, as well as a parking lot for the Police Department (see Figure 28). In the background, views of the Project Site are obscured by an approximately 7-foot-tall stone wall, a utility shed, and tall trees. The roofline of the existing building is slightly visible above the tree branches. The intervening distance significantly minimizes the perceived visibility of the existing building. From this vantage point, a portion of the 3-story section of the IL building would be visible through the existing vegetation. This is similar to the visibility of the existing on-Site building in the current condition. While the IL building would be significantly closer to this vantage point than the existing office building, the existing on- and off-Site vegetation would continue to screen almost the entire building when viewed from this vantage point. As discussed above, the roofline and the façade treatment of the building would be in keeping with the residential architectural character of the Village. Therefore, this slight change in visibility would not create a significant adverse impact to visual resources or community character. In addition, this would be one of the only places within the Village Hall parking lot where the buildings of the Proposed Project would be visible. Vantage Point 8: Ivy Hill Lane between Arbor Drive and the First Guest Parking Area Vantage point 8 is located along Ivy Hill Lane, just to the east of a guest parking lot in The Arbors. As described above for vantage point 1, there is a vegetated berm located between The Arbors and the Project Site upon and around which a thickly wooded area has grown. From vantage point 8 views of the Project Site are significantly obstructed by a thick wooded area (see Figure 29). A small part of the existing building is barely visible through a small clearing in the leaves. However, the view of the Project Site and the existing building from this vantage point are largely unnoticeable. The Proposed Project’s buildings would not be visible from this vantage point. 3.7.4. Consistency of the Proposed Project with Other Developments in the Village The Proposed Project includes three main building components: 24 two and two-and-a-half stories attached townhouse units on the western portion of the Site; a three- and four-story IL facility at the center of the Site; and a four-story AL facility in the northeast portion of the Site. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 44 DRAFT Most, if not all, of the existing vegetation between the proposed townhouses and the existing Arbors residences to the west would remain, maintaining the existing visual buffer between the two properties. In addition, most of the vegetation to the north, east, and south of the Site would be retained, which would minimize, if not completely obscure, views of the interior of the Site from areas off-Site. To facilitate this development, the Proposed Zoning would allow a maximum height of 45 feet for senior living facilities, as recommended by the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. In addition to being consistent with the recommendations of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, there is existing precedent within the Village for buildings that are four stories or more. As demonstrated below, most of these taller buildings are shielded from public rights-of-way and offer limited views from any off-site vantage point. In terms of consistency with existing developments in the Village, the Proposed Project is most similar in mass and scale to the Atria Rye Brook. As shown in Figure 30, The Atria is a three- and four-story building. The three-story portion of the structure fronts King Street with the four-story portion located behind it and up a slope. Another example of a residential-type facility containing buildings in excess of four stories is the Doral Arrowwood Conference Center, located on Anderson Hill Road in northern Rye Brook. Although more massive than the Proposed Project, the hotel component of the conference center is four and five stories (see Figure 31). As with the Proposed Project, the conference center and hotel are barely visible from the public right-of-way. The Hilton Westchester, located on Westchester Avenue, abuts a single-family neighborhood, and contains a four-story hotel component (see Figure 31). As with Doral Arrowwood Conference Center and the Proposed Project, views of these hotel wings are almost completely screened from Westchester Avenue as a result of an intervening wooded area. 3.7.5. Consistency of the Proposed Project with the Existing Visual and Community Character The Proposed Project would transform the visual character of the Project Site from one that is dominated by a large surface parking area and a monolithic rectangular three-story office building to a landscaped campus featuring several different uses, building sizes, and building types. As discussed above, the buildings proposed (two, three, and four stories) would be consistent with other residential-type buildings within the Village in terms of height and screening from public rights-of-way. In addition, the Proposed Project’s buildings have been designed to be architecturally compatible with the predominant characteristics of residential construction within the Village. This includes the use of clapboard and stone siding, as well as the incorporation of dormers and gabled roofs. As such, the height of the proposed buildings and their location within a Site buffered by existing mature vegetation is consistent with the character of other Village buildings. The Proposed Project, save for views along a small portion of Arbor Drive, would be minimally visible from outside of the Project Site. The Proposed Project’s buildings would not be visible from King Street or North Ridge Street and would be minimally visible from a single point along King Street. As demonstrated in the photosimulations presented above, the Proposed Project would be visible from a small area of the parking lot of Village Hall, similar to the existing condition. From the northwestern perimeter of Harkness Park, the Proposed Project would be visible through the existing and proposed vegetation, as the current building and parking lot are in the current condition. However, the view into the Site with the Proposed Project from this location would be of buildings of a more residential style and character, as opposed to the existing office building and surface parking lot. In addition, as with the existing condition, the Technical Memorandum DRAFT 45 October 26, 2017 view from this vantage point would be significantly screened by existing vegetation. As a result, this change in visibility would not be an adverse impact on the visual or community character. The Proposed Project would also be plainly visible from Arbor Drive.12 The view into the Project Site from Arbor Drive would be of a landscaped campus that includes buildings of a residential-type use, scale, and character. The view from Arbor Drive would be markedly different from the current condition. Instead of a view of a wide expanse of a surface parking lot, the Proposed Project would have the appearance of a traditional early 20th century apartment village oriented around a central entry court. 3.8. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 3.8.1. Emergency Services Response Call History of the Project Site The Project Site is served by the Rye Brook Police Department (RBPD), the Port Chester Fire Department (PCFD) (with assistance from the Rye Brook Fire Department [RBFD], which is under the operational control of the PCFD) and the Port Chester-Rye-Rye Brook Emergency Medical Service (EMS). On behalf of the Applicant, and at the request of the Village’s Planning Board, AKRF sent correspondence to each of the emergency service providers serving the Site requesting information about that department’s call history to the Project Site and the Atria in Rye Brook, as well as information regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Project to the department (see Appendix E-2). As of the date of this Memorandum, AKRF has received return correspondence from RBPD. The RBPD responded to the Site approximately 10 times per year for the past 4 years (see Table 12). Calls to the Project Site have accounted for 1–2 calls per 1,000 Village-wide. Table 12 Police Response to the Project Site Year Calls to Project Site Calls Village Wide Rate per 1,000 PD Calls 2017* 5 (7.5) 4,103 (6,154) 1.22 2016 10 5,968 1.68 2015 15 5,893 2.55 2014 11 5,410 2.03 Note: * Number given by RBPD is for the year to date through August. Number in parentheses is a projected annual total based on the year to date information. Source: RBPD. As stated on their website, the EMS currently responds to approximately 4,800 calls per year throughout the City of Rye, Village of Port Chester, and Village of Rye Brook. Specific information about the call history to the Project Site has not been provided as of the date of this Memorandum. Call History to Other Senior Living Communities To project the potential increase in call volume to the EMS services as a result of the Proposed Project, the RBPD provided the call history of the RBPD to the Atria, Rye Brook 12 Arbor Drive is a private street for which the Project Site is the beneficiary of an access easement; it is not a public street. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 46 DRAFT for both medically aided and other responses. As previously described, the Atria, Rye Brook is an IL and AL building with 168 units. As shown in Table 13, the Atria averaged just over 300 police calls per year. Most calls are medically related and require an EMS response as well. The Atria accounts for 50–54 calls per 1,000 to the RBPD. Table 13 Police Responses to the Atria Rye Brook Year Medically Aided Calls Lift Assist Total Calls Rate per 1,000 PD Calls 2017* 161 (242) 44 (66) 223 (335) 54.35 2016 226 52 302 50.60 2015 230 60 325 55.15 2014 214 60 290 53.60 2016 226 52 302 50.60 Note: * Number given by RBPD is for the year to date through August. Number in parentheses is a projected annual total based on the year to date information. Source: RBPD. On behalf of the Applicant, AKRF requested the EMS call history of The Bristal in Armonk, NY, a senior living facility providing 106 units of IL / AL, and 40 units of memory care (see Appendix E-2). The North Castle Police Department indicated that between January 2014 and the end of August 2017, EMS responded to The Bristal 132 times, or, an average of 36 times per year. This response rate is significantly lower than the response rate to the Atria. The difference in response rate could be attributable to a number of factors, including the relative age and health of the on-Site population. Anticipated Impacts of the Proposed Project The Proposed Project would likely result in an increase in calls to police, fire, and EMS providers. Emergency Medical Services Based on the average annual per unit volume for EMS calls to the Atria, Rye Brook, and The Bristal in Armonk, the Proposed Project could result in an increase of 60–419 calls for EMS per year. Based on the current overall EMS call volume of approximately 4,800 calls per year, the projected increase in call volumes attributable to the Proposed Project would constitute between a 1.2 percent and 8.7 percent increase in EMS calls within the district. The Proposed Project would seek to incorporate operational measures to minimize any unnecessary EMS calls. The EMS is funded primarily through user charges. As such, the financial impact of an increase in calls attributable to the Proposed Project would be mitigated through future user fees. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not be anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the EMS. Police Services The RBPD indicated that the Proposed Project, considered with the other previously approved residential developments in the Village, would require additional police personnel and associated equipment. For the fiscal year 2017, the average salary of a Technical Memorandum DRAFT 47 October 26, 2017 RBPD patrolman is approximately $107,50013. However, the “fully loaded” cost of a patrolman, including benefits, is approximately $225,750.14 As described in Section 2.5, “Anticipated Fiscal Benefits of the Project,” of this Memorandum, the Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $281,359 per year in property taxes to the Village, which would be more than sufficient to cover the portion of the increase in RBPD costs attributable to the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact with respect to the provision of police services. Fire Services The buildings within the Proposed Project would include modern life-safety equipment, alarm, and monitoring systems, and would be fully sprinklered. It is not anticipated that the Proposed Project would result in a significant increase in the number of calls to the Fire Department. Fire department access to the Project Site and the Project Site buildings is discussed below. 3.8.2. Fire Department Access Fire Apparatus Access to Site Buildings Appropriate access to proposed Site buildings has been provided in accordance with preliminary meetings with Village fire officials, as shown on drawing sheet C-320. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have an adverse impact with respect to the ability of fire apparatus to service the buildings within the Proposed Project. Secondary Site Access Based on the nature of the development proposed, an age-restricted residential community, and comments received from the public as well as the Village’s Board of Trustees and Planning Board, the Applicant has proposed to construct a secondary means of access to the Project Site in cases where the Site’s primary access from Arbor Drive may not be available. Specifically, the Applicant proposes to construct a minimum 24-foot wide access drive that would connect the northeast corner of the Site’s internal access road to the northern terminus of the existing parking lot behind the Village’s firehouse (see sheets C-300 and C-320). The drive would be constructed with grasscrete pavers and would be located on both ends. The drive would only be used in the case of emergencies and only authorized Site or Village personnel would be allowed to operate the gate. The Applicant would maintain this drive, including providing for the necessary removal of snow during the winter. 3.8.3. Blind Brook School District The Project Site is located within the BBSD. The district contains three schools: Bruno M. Ponterio Ridge Street School, Blind Brook Middle School, and the Blind Brook High School. The BBSD projects an enrollment of 1,441 students in the 2017–2018 school year, which is a decrease of 57 students from the 2016–2017 school year and 90 students below its peak during the 2014– 13 Correspondence from the RBPD indicated that there are 26 sworn officers. The fiscal year 2017 budget, available on the Village’s website, lists the total salary by officer rank. The number of officers by rank was estimated based on the total of 26 officers and assuming an increase in salary for each level of rank. This yields a total of 16 patrolmen, two patrolmen/detectives, six sergeants, one lieutenant, and one chief. 14 Employee benefits are assumed to be 1.1 times the cost of the salary, the rate reflected in the 2017 Village budget. Therefore, the “fully loaded” cost of an employee would be 2.1 times their salary. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 48 DRAFT 2015 school year (see Table 14). BBSD expects enrollment to continue to decline slightly during the next few years.15 Table 14 Blind Brook School District 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006 2006–2007 2007–2008 2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011 2011–2012 2012–2013 2013–2014 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 Total Enrollment 1,281 1,370 1,407 1,460 1,488 1,506 1,555 1,524 1,522 1,488 1,468 1,488 1,508 1,531 1,507 1,498 1,441 Change from Previous Year -- 89 37 53 28 18 49 -31 -2 -34 -20 -12 20 23 -24 -9 -57 % Change from Previous Year -- 6.9% 2.7% 3.8% 1.9% 1.2% 3.3% -2% -0.1% -2.2% -1.3% -0.8% 1.3% 1.5% -1.6% -0.5% -3.8% Sources: 2017–2018 BBSD Adopted Budget and Cornell Program on Applied Demographics To estimate the potential impact of the Proposed Project on the BBSD’s enrollment, AKRF contacted school districts in which similar age-restricted projects are located. Data were collected for projects that were age-restricted to those 55 years of age and older (see Appendix E-3). As shown in Table 15, only three school-age children were reported to live at any of these communities. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that school-age children would be unlikely to live at the Proposed Project. In the unlikely scenario that one or two school-age children were to live at the Proposed Project and attend BBSD, based on the current and anticipated enrollment trends within the BBSD, the addition of this limited number of school children would not be anticipated to result in an adverse impact to the available capacity of the District. Finally, as described in Section 2.5, “Anticipated Fiscal Benefits of the Project,” of this Memorandum, the Proposed Project is expected to result in an increase of approximately $875,031 per year in property taxes to the BBSD, which would be more than sufficient to cover the costs of one or two school children that could live at the Proposed Project. (The total expenditure per pupil within the BBSD is approximately $28,061.16) Table 15 Public School Enrollment for 55+ Residential Communities Development Type of Units School District Enrollment HarborView, Port Washington Condos for rent/sale Port Washington UFSD 1 Sutton Manor Condos Condos for rent/sale Bedford Central School District 0 Woodcrest at Jacobs Hill Condos for rent/sale Lakeland School District 0 1 Christie Place 100 Christie Place Condos for rent/sale Scarsdale Public Schools 0 Retreat at Carmel Carmel School District 0 Stoneleigh Woods Carmel School District 0 Springvale Apartments Garden apartments for rent Hendrick Hudson School District 2 Glassbury Court Townhomes for sale Yorktown Central School District 0 Sources: See Appendix E-3. 15 2017–2018 BBSD Adopted Budget. 16 Ibid. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 49 October 26, 2017 On behalf of the Applicant, and at the request of the Village, AKRF solicited the input of the BBSD on the potential impacts of the Proposed Project (see Appendix E-3). As of the submission of this Memorandum, a response has not been received. 3.8.4. Open Space Adequate On-Site Parks and Recreation Space There are two requirements in the Village Code relating to the provision of parks and open space. The first requirement is specified in §209-14 of the Village Code, which states that site plans must, when required by the approval authority, contain “a park or parks suitably located and usable for passive or active recreational purposes.” If such a park or parks cannot be located on-site, §209-15 requires that an applicant remit a fee in lieu of providing the required open space. The OPRHP has established standards for the type and size of recreational facilities recommended for a community based on its population (see Table 16). Table 16 New York State Recreation Facility Design Guidelines Facility Type Typical Size (acres) Acres per 1,000 People Radius of Area Served (miles) Travel Time (minutes) Means of Access Comments Pocket park 0.25–0.5 0.25 0.5 10 Bicycle or foot Combined with residential development Play lot 1–2 2 0.5 10 Bicycle or foot For office workers, shoppers, and neighborhood residents Neighborhood park 4–7 1 0.5 20 Bicycle or foot Contains passive areas with landscaping as well as active areas such as play fields, court games, and tot lots Source: OPRHP. The Proposed Project would conservatively be anticipated to add a population of 453 people to the Project Site.17 According to the OPRHP standards, the new population would create a need for approximately 1.47 acres of open space (see Table 17). Table 17 New York State Recommended Available Open Space Facility Type Approx. Size in Acres Acres per 1,000 Population Acres Needed for Incoming Population Pocket Park 0.25–0.5 0.25 0.11 Play Lot 1–2 2 0.91 Neighborhood Park 4–7 1 0.45 Total 1.47 Source: OPRHP 17 To estimate the future population of the Project Site, the following multipliers were assumed: one person per bed at the 85-bed AL facility; two people within each of the 160 IL units; and two people within each of the 24 townhomes. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 50 DRAFT The Proposed Project would preserve approximately 10.77 acres, or 60.6 percent, as open space. Of that space, at least 2.7 acres could be considered parks and recreational space, as shown on Figure 32 and summarized in Table 18. Table 18 On-Site Recreation Areas Open Space Area Approximate Area Description Memory Garden 9,300 sf For AL and memory care residents North and West Lawn 29,125 sf Active and passive recreation for IL residents Linear Walking Path 26,260 sf Enhanced linear walking path for all Site residents Northern townhouse yard 11,270 sf For use by Townhouse residents Southern townhouse yard 12,475 sf For use by Townhouse residents Backyard 29,425 sf For use by any Project resident Total 117,855 sf (~2.7 acres) The five main areas of park and recreation space are described in more detail below: • A Memory Garden (approximately 9,300 sf) would be located north of the AL facility for use by the facility’s residents. This secure, outdoor area would be landscaped and programmed to allow AL residents to safely enjoy the outdoors. • The North and West Lawns surrounding the IL facility (approximately 29,125 sf), would be programmed for active and passive recreational uses that may include seating areas, lawn games, and walking paths. It should be noted that the walking paths in this area would connect to the sidewalk loop around the main building, as well as to the Linear Walking Path. • The existing Linear Walking Path would be extended to the north within the Site and would terminate at a landscaped loop in the Site’s northeast corner. This path, and the landscaped area to its east, would give Project residents the opportunity to enjoy longer walks on the Project Site. In addition, this Linear Walking Path would connect to the existing sidewalk that connects the Project Site to Harkness Park. • The townhouse yards (north and south) would provide areas of maintained lawn that residents could use for active or passive recreation. These yards would include open expanses that could be used for walking, sitting, recreating, or socializing. Note that not all areas of open space around the townhouse units were considered as park space for purposes of this analysis; only the areas that included large, contiguous open spaces outside of the areas of more thick vegetation. • The Site’s “backyard,” between the forested area surrounding Wetland A and The Arbors townhouses, would continue to be preserved as an area of manicured lawn. This area, inclusive of the stream and footbridges, would be available to Project residents for passive recreation. As the Proposed Project would include approximately 2.7 acres of space for active and passive recreation, which is nearly twice the amount required to meet the needs of the projected on-Site population, there would be no adverse impact with respect to the provision of open space. In addition, the Proposed Project would fulfill its obligation under §209-14 and therefore no fee would be required pursuant to §209-15. Dedication of Parkland to the Village In addition to the provision of adequately sized parks on-Site, Section 250-7E(2)(f) of the Village Code requires that 10 percent of a PUD site be offered and dedicated to the Village Technical Memorandum DRAFT 51 October 26, 2017 for recreational use or a fee in lieu of providing such land be paid to the Village. The Applicant understands this provision of the Village Code to apply to a PUD site as a whole at the time that it is mapped a PUD, and not to individual lots within a PUD site, including the Project Site. In addition, the Applicant believes that Harkness Park, which is within the same PUD site as the Project Site, would fulfill the obligation of providing a suitably sized public park within a PUD site. 3.9. INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES 3.9.1. Water The existing on-Site building contains approximately 200,000 sf of office area, which, using an industry standard of approximately 200 sf of office space per employee,18 yields a total of approximately 1,000 employees who could be expected to occupy the building if the building were fully occupied. The publication NYS Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, NYSDEC, March 5, 2014, specifies 15 gallons per day (gpd) of water/sanitary usage per office employee, plus additional usage (15 gpd per employee) to account for the full food service offered at the building. This yields a water/sanitary demand of approximately 30,000 gpd for the existing office use. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate a water/sanitary demand of 49,570 gpd (see Table 19). Therefore, the Proposed Project would be expected to increase the on-Site water/sanitary demand by approximately 19,570 gpd. Table 19 Estimated Water/Sanitary Generation Units Quantity Gallons per Day per Unit Total Gallons per Day Townhouses Bedrooms 60 110 6,600 Assisted Living Bedrooms 85 110 9,350 Employees 34 (largest shift) 15 510 Independent Living Bedrooms 301 110 33,110 Total 49,570 Source: NYS Design Standards for Intermediate Sized Wastewater Treatment Systems, NYSDEC, March 5, 2014. United Water Westchester (SUEZ) provides water service to the Site via a water main beneath Arbor Drive. The Applicant’s engineer sent correspondence to SUEZ regarding the capacity of the off-Site water infrastructure to serve the Proposed Project. As of the date of this Technical Memorandum, a response has not been received. Based on a conversation with the Village’s Department of Public Works supervisor, the Applicant’s engineer understands that there may be a need for the Proposed Project to incorporate a pressure boosting system to adequately serve the IL and AL building. This will be confirmed during the final design of the Site’s water system. As shown on the full size PUD Concept Plan and Preliminary Site Plan, an 8-inch watermain is proposed to loop around the main building, with extensions provided to serve the proposed townhouses. The watermain would connect to the existing municipal main within Arbor Drive at two locations. Fire hydrants are proposed within the Project Site in accordance with fire code requirements. A 4-inch domestic water service and a 6-inch fire service are proposed to serve the 18 The Village of Rye Brook’s Zoning Ordinance also uses 1 employee per 200 sf as the ratio to establish parking standards for office buildings. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 52 DRAFT main building. A meeting has been scheduled with SUEZ during the week of October 30, 2017 to review the Proposed Project’s water demand and water system drawings. 3.9.2. Sanitary Sewer Service As described above, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate approximately 59,570 gpd of sanitary sewage; approximately 19,570 gpd more than would be expected by the fully occupied office building on-Site. The Site is within the Blind Brook Sewer District, which is served by the Blind Brook Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Blind Brook WWTP has a design capacity of 5.0 million gpd, with a 2014 actual flow of 3.0 million gpd. Therefore, the Blind Brook WWTP has the capacity to serve the Proposed Project. The Site is served by an existing private 8-inch sanitary main that proceeds west through The Arbors development. The Proposed Project would include an 8-inch sanitary main that would loop around the main building, with extensions provided to serve the proposed townhouses. The sanitary service would enter the IL/AL building with an 8-inch service line that would connect to the existing private main that serves the Project Site. Based on a conversation with the Village Building Inspector, there are no known capacity issues with the existing main, which is expected to be able to serve the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact to the sanitary system. 3.10. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION This section of the Technical Memorandum summarizes the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Proposed Project, which was completed by Maser Consulting P.A. The complete TIS can be found in Appendix F. The TIS assesses the potential traffic and transportation impacts of the Proposed Project and its potential effects on the study area’s vehicular safety and circulation conditions. As demonstrated in the TIS, and summarized below, the Proposed Project would result in less traffic in the future than with the re-occupancy of the existing office building on-Site. In addition, the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the study area intersections when compared to conditions with the re- occupancy of the existing office building. Finally, the Proposed Project includes signal retimings at two intersections along King Street, which, while not necessary to mitigate a Project-related impact, would improve the existing and future traffic operation of the King Street corridor. 3.10.1. Methodology The approved Table of Contents for this Technical Memorandum (see Appendix A-1) defines the study area for the TIS, which includes the Project Site’s driveways on Arbor Drive and eight intersections along King Street, between Anderson Hill Road and Glenville Street, for the following intersections: • King Street (Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road • King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp • King Street (Route 120A) and N. Ridge Street (Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB On/Off Ramp) • King Street (Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road (Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB On/Off Ramp) • King Street (Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway NB On/Off Ramp • King Street and Arbor Drive • King Street (Route 120A) and Blind Brook Middle/High School Right Turn Entry Driveway • King Street (Route 120A) and Glenville Street / Blind Brook Middle/High School • Arbor Drive and Existing Office / Proposed Site Driveway. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 53 October 26, 2017 As required, the TIS describes existing traffic conditions within the study area, conditions in the Future without the Proposed Project (i.e., the “No Build” condition), and in the Future with the Proposed Project (i.e., the “Build” condition). The analysis year for the No Build and the Build conditions is 2025, which is when the Applicant anticipates that the Proposed Project would be fully occupied and stabilized. To determine existing and future traffic operating conditions within the study area, capacity analyses were performed at all study area intersections. Capacity analyses were performed in accordance with the procedures described in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. The terminology used in identifying traffic flow conditions is Level of Service (LOS). A LOS “A” represents the best condition and a LOS “F” represents the worst condition. A LOS “C” is generally used as a design standard while a LOS “D” is acceptable during peak periods. A LOS “E” represents an operation near capacity. To identify a signalized intersection’s LOS, the average amount of vehicle delay is computed for each approach to the intersection as well as for the overall intersection. The analysis procedure for un-signalized intersections is based on the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. The average total delay for any particular critical movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. To identify the LOS, the average amount of vehicle delay is computed for each critical movement (major street left turns and minor street movements) to the intersection. 3.10.2. Existing Conditions The Project Site is primarily served by King Street (NYS Route 120A), the Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway, and Arbor Drive. King Street is located east of the Project Site and is a two-way arterial running north-south within the Village with one lane each way and separate left and right turn lanes near the Project Site. Arbor Drive, which is a privately owned street for which the Project Site is the beneficiary of an access easement, is located on the south side of the Project Site and is a two-lane road that originates at a signalized intersection with King Street (NYS Route 120A). Arbor Drive continues in a westerly direction from King Street, providing access to the existing office building at 900 King Street and The Arbors townhouse community and is a no outlet road. The Hutchinson River Parkway is located north of the Project Site. To establish baseline traffic conditions within the study area, manual turning movement traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday, March 29, 2017 between the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:30 AM to determine the weekday AM peak hour, and between the hours of 4:00 PM and 6:30 PM to determine the weekday PM peak hour.19 The 2017 existing traffic volumes for each study area intersection are shown in Figures 2 and 3 of the TIS. Table 22, presented later in this section, summarizes the existing levels of service for each of the study area intersections. 3.10.3. Future Without the Proposed Project As described above, the Build Year for the Proposed Project is 2025. To account for normal background traffic that would be expected to occur in the Future without the Proposed Project, the TIS estimated a growth factor of 1.0 percent per year (2017–2021) based on NYSDOT historical data and 0.46 percent per year (2021–2025), based on the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council’s (NYMTC) Regional Transportation Plan, for a total background growth 19 Traffic Counts from the Senior Learning Community at Purchase College Traffic Access and Impact Study prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates (FPCA)—December 2016 were utilized for the King Street/Anderson Hill Road intersection. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 54 DRAFT of 5.91 percent by 2025. The resulting 2025 projected traffic volumes are shown on Figures 4 and 5 of the TIS. In addition, traffic from other planned or potential development in the study area, including The Enclave, PepsiCo Project Renew Master Plan, Trinity Presbyterian Church, Sun Homes (Phase 3 Reckson Executive Park), the Senior Learning Community at Purchase College (Figures 6 and 7 of the TIS), and the re-occupancy of the 900 King Street Office Building (Figures 8 and 9 of the TIS), were included in the No Build traffic volumes. The resulting 2025 No Build traffic volumes are shown in Figures 10 and 11 of the TIS. Of note, re-occupancy of the existing Site office building would be expected to generate a total of 333 AM peak hour trips and a total of 302 PM peak hour trips (see Table 20). Table 22 below, summarizes the 2025 No Build LOS. Table 20 As-of-Right Trip Generation As-of-Right Entry Exit Total HTGR* Volume HTGR* Volume HTGR* Volume Office (200,000 sf)1 Weekday AM peak hour 1.465 293 0.20 40 1.665 333 Weekday PM peak hour 0.255 51 1.255 251 1.51 302 Notes: *The above Hourly Trip Generation Rates (HTGR) are based on data published by the ITE as contained in the Trip Generation Manual: 9th Edition, 2012. (1) ITE Land Use 710 – Office Sources: TIS (2017), Maser Consulting P.A. 3.10.4. Future with the Proposed Project Site-Generated Traffic The number of peak hour trips generated by the Proposed Project was calculated using information published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as contained in their report Trip Generation, 9th Edition, 2012. As shown in Table 21, the Proposed Project would generate a total of 61 trips (22 entering trips and 39 exiting trips) during the weekday AM peak hour and a total of 78 trips (44 entering trips and 34 exiting trips) during the weekday PM peak hour. As such, the Proposed Project would generate a total of 272 fewer trips during the AM peak hour and a total of 224 fewer trips during the PM peak hour than re-occupancy of the existing office building. Project-generated trips were assigned to the roadway network based on a review of the existing and expected travel patterns (see Figure 12 of the TIS). The resulting Project-generated traffic volumes and 2025 build traffic volumes are shown on Figures 13-16 of the TIS. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 55 October 26, 2017 Table 21 Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic Proposed Development Entry Exit Total HTGR* Volume HTGR* Volume HTGR* Volume Residential Townhouse (24 units)1 Weekday AM peak hour 0.12 3 0.57 14 0.69 17 Weekday PM peak hour 0.52 13 0.26 6 0.78 19 Senior Adult Housing (160 units)2 Weekday AM peak hour 0.07 11 0.13 21 0.20 32 Weekday PM peak hour 0.135 22 0.115 18 0.25 40 Assisted Living (85 units)3 Weekday AM peak hour 0.09 8 0.05 4 0.14 12 Weekday PM peak hour 0.10 9 0.12 10 0.22 19 Total Weekday AM peak hour N/A 22 N/A 39 N/A 61 Weekday PM peak hour N/A 44 N/A 34 N/A 78 Notes: *The above HTGR are based on data published by the ITE as contained in the Trip Generation Manual: 9th Edition, 2012. (1) ITE Land Use 230 – Residential Townhouse Rates (2) ITE Land Use 252 – Senior Adult Housing Rates (3) ITE Land Use 254 – Assisted Living Rates Sources: TIS (2017), Maser Consulting P.A. Traffic and Capacity Analysis for the Future with the Proposed Project Capacity analyses were performed for each study area intersection using the traffic volumes for the Year 2025 with the Proposed Project. As shown in Table 22 below, 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. In fact, certain study area intersections would see a beneficial change to LOS with the Proposed Project when compared the No Build condition. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 56 DRAFT Table 22 Level of Service Summary Location Year 2017 Existing Conditions Year 2025 No Build Conditions Year 2025 Proposed Project Conditions Weekday AM Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday PM Weekday AM Weekday PM LOS (Delay-seconds) LOS (Delay-seconds) LOS (Delay-seconds) LOS (Delay-seconds) LOS (Delay-seconds) LOS (Delay-seconds) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Anderson Hill Road B (15.6) C (21.6) C (20.7) D (38.7) C (20.3) D (36.2) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkway SB Off Ramp Minor movement—westbound right C (19.0) B (14.0) D (27.3) C (17.9) D (27.3) C (16.7) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and North Ridge Street/Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways SB On/Off Ramp Major movements—northbound Minor movements—eastbound left eastbound right B (10.6) F (160.9) C (21.7) A (9.9) F (60.8) D (26.2) B (12.1) F (451.1) F(58.8) B (11.1) F (182.2) E (39.9) B (11.5) F (346.3) E (27.2) B (10.5) F (99.5) E (38.1) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Glen Ridge Road/ Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—southbound left Minor movements—westbound left/right B (14.6) F (53.1) C (15.8) E (41.8) C (18.1) F (168.7) D (28.7) F (284.6) C (17.9) F (164.0) C (19.7) F (85.7) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Hutchinson River Parkway/Merritt Parkways NB On/Off Ramp Major movements—northbound left Minor movements—eastbound left/right A (0.0) F (82.1) A (8.8) F (54.4) A (0.0) F (365.4) A (9.0) F (166.1) A (0.0) F (151.1) A (9.0) F (107.3) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Arbor Drive B (10.8) A (7.4) B (15.2) C (22.0) B (15.3) A (8.7) With Timing Changes -- -- -- -- B (13.1) A (8.1) King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS Right Turn Entry A A A A A A King Street (NYS Route 120A) and Blind Brook MS/HS – Glenville Street C (29.6) C (20.1) C (32.1) C (22.1) C (32.1) C (21.9) With Timing Changes -- -- -- -- C (28.6) B (19.6) Arbor Drive and Site Driveway Major movements—westbound left Minor movements—southbound left/right A (0.0) A (9.6) A (0.0) A (9.5) A (0.0) A (11.3) A (0.0) B (12.6) A (0.0) A (10.0) A (0.0) A (9.9) Notes: SB = southbound; NB = northbound. Sources: TIS (2017), Maser Consulting P. A. Signal Retimings The TIS also examines the potential improvements to traffic conditions in the Future with the Proposed Project from the retiming of the signals along King Street at the intersections of Arbor Drive and Blind Brook Middle School/High School-Glenville Street. As shown in Technical Memorandum DRAFT 57 October 26, 2017 Table 1 of the TIS, certain existing movements at these intersections can be improved with the retiming of these signals. With the proposed traffic signal timing changes, the intersection of King Street and Arbor Drive is projected to operate at an overall LOS B during the AM peak hour (with the King Street northbound approach improved to LOS A) and is projected to operate at an overall LOS A during the PM peak hour (with the Arbor Drive eastbound left turn improved to a LOS D). Regarding the King Street intersection with Blind Brook MS/HS-Glenville Street, with the proposed signal retiming, the intersection is projected to operate at an overall Level of Service “C” during the weekday AM peak hour (with the Blind Brook Middle School/High School eastbound left turn improved to a LOS D and the Glenville Street westbound left/through improved to a LOS D) and is projected to operate at an improved overall Level of Service “B” during the weekday PM peak hour (with the Blind Brook MS/HS eastbound left turn operating at a LOS D and the Glenville Street westbound left/through operating at a LOS D). Accident Patterns Accident information along King Street within the study area for a 3-year period was obtained the NYSDOT Records Access Office and from the Senior Learning Community at Purchase College Traffic Access and Impact Study prepared by Frederick P. Clark Associates. This data is detailed in Appendix F. There were a total of two reported accidents in 2012, one reported accident in 2013, and four reported accidents in 2014 at King Street and Anderson Hill Road. There were a total of five reported accidents in 2014, nine reported accidents in 2015, and eleven reported accidents in 2016 on King Street at Reference Markers 120A 8701 1045 to 120A 8701 1040, according to NYSDOT Accident Data. There were two reported accidents in 2014, three reported accidents in 2015, and five reported accidents in 2016 at the King Street/Arbor Drive intersection. Based on the anticipated traffic generation for the Proposed Project, it is expected that the Proposed Project will not have a significant impact on the accident rates on the area roadways. 3.10.5. Mitigation As described in the TIS (see Appendix F), the redevelopment of the Project Site to the age-restricted residential community, when compared to the re-occupancy of the office building, will not significantly affect the area roadways. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. However, signal retiming can be implemented to improve existing and future operating conditions. 3.11. AIR QUALITY 3.11.1. Introduction The potential effects of the Proposed Project from stationary sources (e.g., fossil fuel-fired equipment) and from mobile sources (i.e., traffic generated by the Proposed Action) on ambient air quality are examined within this section. The Proposed Project would consist of one new building—a three- and four-story IL facility in the center of the Site and a four-story AL in the northeast of the Site connected by a one-story portion—and 24 two- and three-bedroom residential townhouses in the western portion of the Site. For purposes of analyzing the worst- 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 58 DRAFT case impacts to air quality, this analysis conservatively assumes that the newly constructed multifamily residential buildings would utilize natural gas-fired heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. In addition to air quality impacts generated by stationary sources, the Proposed Project would result in Project-generated traffic that would affect traffic conditions within the area of the Site (see Section 3.10, “Traffic and Transportation”). The potential for mobile source air quality impacts from the Proposed Project was analyzed using the screening procedures found in the NYSDOT’s The Environmental Manual (TEM). Determining the Significance of Air Quality Impacts SEQRA regulations state that the significance of a predicted consequence of a project (i.e., whether it is material, substantial, large, or important) should be assessed in connection with its setting (e.g., urban or rural), probability of occurrence, duration, irreversibility, geographic scope, magnitude, and number of people affected. In terms of the magnitude of air quality impacts, any action predicted to increase the concentration of a criteria air pollutant to a level that would exceed the concentrations defined by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) would be deemed to have a potential significant adverse impact. Principal Conclusions As discussed below, the Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources such as the proposed HVAC systems. Similarly, traffic generated by the Proposed Project would not result in an exceedance of NYSDOT’s screening criteria for mobile source air quality impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse air quality impacts. 3.11.2. Existing Conditions Air quality is affected by air pollutants produced by both motor vehicles and stationary sources. Emissions from motor vehicles are referred to as mobile source emissions, while emissions from fixed facilities are referred to as stationary source emissions. Emissions from Project-generated traffic are also referred to as indirect effects, while stationary sources on the Site are considered to be direct effects. Ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) are predominantly influenced by mobile source emissions. Particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (nitric oxide [NO] and nitrogen dioxide [NO2], collectively referred to as NOx) are emitted from both mobile and stationary sources. Fine PM is also formed when emissions of NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), ammonia, organic compounds, and other gases react or condense in the atmosphere. Emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) are associated mainly with stationary sources, and some sources utilizing non-road diesel such as large international marine engines. On-road diesel vehicles currently contribute very little to SO2 emissions since the sulfur content of on-road diesel fuel, which is federally regulated, is extremely low. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by complex photochemical processes that include NOx and VOCs. Ambient concentrations of CO, PM, NO2, SO2, ozone, and lead are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and are referred to as “criteria pollutants”; emissions of VOCs, NOx, and other precursors to criteria pollutants are also regulated by EPA. As required by the CAA, primary and secondary NAAQS have been established for six major air pollutants: CO, NO2, ozone, respirable PM (both PM2.5 and PM10), SO2, and lead. The primary standards represent levels that are requisite to protect the public health, allowing an adequate margin of safety. The secondary standards are intended to protect the nation’s welfare, and Technical Memorandum DRAFT 59 October 26, 2017 account for air pollutant effects on soil, water, visibility, materials, vegetation, and other aspects of the environment. The primary standards are generally either the same as the secondary standards or more restrictive. The most recent concentrations of all criteria pollutants at NYSDEC air quality monitoring stations nearest to the Project Site are presented in Table 23. As shown, the recently monitored levels for all pollutants other than ozone did not exceed the NAAQS. For most pollutants, the concentrations presented in Table 23 are based on recent measurements obtained in 2016, the most recent year for which data are available. Table 23 Representative Monitored Ambient Air Quality Data Pollutant Location Units Averaging Period Concentration NAAQS CO Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx ppm 8-hour 1.1 9 1-hour 1.9 35 SO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 3-hour 23 1,300 1-hour 29(1) 196 PM10 IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 24-hour 37 150 PM2.5 White Plains, Westchester µg/m3 Annual 7.1(2) 12 24-hour 16.8(2) 35 NO2 Botanical Garden (Pfizer Lab), Bronx µg/m3 Annual 30 100 1-hour 109(3) 188 Lead IS 52, Bronx µg/m3 3-month 0.016(4) 0.15 Ozone White Plains, Westchester ppm 8-hour 0.074+(5) 0.070 Notes: + Indicated values exceeding the NAAQS. (1) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2014–2016) of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. EPA replaced the 24-hour and the annual standards with the 1-hour standard. (2) Annual value is based on a 3-year average (2014–2016) of annual concentrations. The 24-hour value is based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour average concentrations. (3) The 1-hour value is based on a 3-year average (2014–2016) of the 98th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. (4) Based on the highest quarterly average concentration measured in 2016. (5) Based on the 3-year average (2014–2016) of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentrations. Source: New York State Air Quality Report Ambient Air Monitoring System, DEC 3.11.3. Potential Impacts of the Proposed Action Stationary Source Analysis The Proposed Action would include the construction of multiple buildings on the Site: a single three- and four-story IL and AL building as well as 24 two- and three-bedroom residential townhouses. The newly constructed buildings were assumed to utilize natural gas- fired HVAC systems to provide space heating, air conditioning, and domestic hot water. The potential for adverse air quality impacts from the combustion sources of the newly constructed buildings was assessed. There would be no nearby sensitive receptors at building heights similar to or greater than the proposed new buildings—sensitive receptors considered are those that contain sensitive uses (i.e., residential) in buildings of similar or greater height than the proposed buildings. Based on experience with similarly sized sources in much denser urban areas (i.e., where 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 60 DRAFT background concentrations are higher), and using screening procedures outlined in the 2014 City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) Technical Manual,20 sources of this size would not cause any exceedance of NO2 standards at elevated sensitive receptor locations nearest to the Site. Given the low background concentrations, the level of emissions from the Proposed Action, and the distance to nearby sensitive receptors, no significant adverse air quality impacts would be expected from the Proposed Project on lower elevations. However, sensitive receptors at ground levels and lower elevations are located approximately 150 feet to the northeast of the Site (along King Street), 350 feet to the northwest of the Site (along North Ridge Street), 470 feet to the south (along Ivory Hill Lane), and 370 feet to the southeast at Blind Brook High School. In order to assess maximum ground level impacts, potential 1-hour and annual average NO2 as well as 24-hour and annual average PM2.5 impacts were evaluated using EPA’s AERSCREEN model (version 16216 EPA, 2016). For this analysis, it was conservatively assumed that all emissions would exhaust from a single stack from the top of the four-story IL building—conservatively combining emissions from the various proposed buildings. While the worst-case impacts at lower elevations and ground level would occur with downwash, the analysis was performed both with and without downwash. The AERSCREEN model predicts worst-case 1-hour average concentrations downwind from a point, area, or volume source. AERSCREEN generates application-specific worst-case meteorology using representative minimum and maximum ambient air temperatures, and site-specific surface characteristics such as albedo, Bowen ratio, and surface roughness length. The model incorporates the Plume Rise Model Enhancements (PRIME) downwash algorithm, which is designed to predict impacts in the “cavity region” (i.e., the area around a structure which under certain conditions may affect an exhaust plume, causing a portion of the plume to become entrained in a recirculation region). Furthermore, AERSCREEN utilizes the Building Profile Input Program (BPIPPRM) model enhancement to assess downwash influences by direction. Maximum projected concentrations that were generated from the AERSCREEN model as a result of the combined HVAC systems are presented in Table 24. The maximum projected NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations with the addition of the Proposed Project at any ground level receptor would not result in an exceedance of the NAAQS. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources, such as the proposed HVAC systems. 20 New York City Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination, CEQR Technical Manual, Chapter 17, section 322.1, March 2014. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 61 October 26, 2017 Table 24 Maximum Modeled Pollutant Concentrations from HVAC Systems Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled Impact Background Concentration(1) Total Concentration NAAQS NO2 1-hour 43 109 152 188 Annual 1 30 31 100 PM2.5 24-hour 2 17 19 35 Annual 0.1 7.1 7.2 12 Note: 1 See Table 23 Mobile Source Analysis An assessment of the potential air quality effects of CO emissions that would result from vehicles coming to and departing from the Site was performed following the procedures outlined in the NYSDOT TEM. As described more fully in Section 3.10, “Traffic and Transportation,” the study area includes nine locations. The screening procedure described below used the traffic analysis results for the 2025 analysis year. As described below, the results of the screening analysis show that none of the nine study area locations would require a detailed microscale air quality analysis; therefore, Project-generated traffic would not result in a significant air quality impact. CO Screening Criteria Screening criteria described in the TEM were employed to determine whether the Proposed Action requires a detailed air quality analysis at the intersections in the study area. Before undertaking a detailed microscale modeling analysis of CO concentrations at the study area intersections, the TEM’s screening criteria first determine whether the Proposed Project would increase traffic volumes or implement any other changes (e.g. changes in speed, roadway width, sidewalk locations, or traffic signals) to the extent whereby significant increases in air pollutant concentrations could be expected. The following multistep procedure outlined in the TEM was used to determine if there is the potential for CO impacts from the Proposed Project: • Level of Service (LOS) Screening: If the Build condition LOS is A, B, or C, no air quality analysis is required. For intersections operating at LOS D or worse, proceed to Capture Criteria. • Capture Criteria: If the Build condition LOS is at D, E, or F, then the following Capture Criteria should be applied at each intersection or corridor to determine if an air quality analysis may be warranted: A. 10 percent or more reduction in the distance between source and receptor (e.g., street or highway widening); or B. 10 percent or more increase in traffic volume on affected roadways for the Build year; or C. 10 percent or more increase in vehicle emissions for the Build year; or D. any increase in the number of queued lanes for the Build year (this applies to intersections); it is not expected that intersections in the Build condition controlled by stop signs would require an air quality analysis; or E. 20 percent reduction in speed when Build average speeds are below 30 mph. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 62 DRAFT If a project does not meet any of the above criteria, a microscale analysis is not required. If a project is located within ½-mile of any intersections evaluated in the CO State Implementation Plan (SIP) Attainment Demonstration, (as identified in the NYSDOT TEM’s Chapter 1.1, Table 2 by county), more stringent screening criteria are applied at project-affected intersections. Should any one of the above criteria be met in addition to the LOS screening, then a Volume Threshold Screening analysis is performed, using traffic volume and emission factor data to compare with specific volume thresholds established in the TEM. Both the Capture Criteria and Volume Threshold Screening were developed by NYSDOT to be conservative air quality estimates based on worst-case assumptions. The TEM states that if the project-related traffic volumes are below the volume threshold criteria, then a microscale air quality analysis is unnecessary even if the other Capture Criteria are met for a location with LOS D or worse, since a violation of the NAAQS would be extremely unlikely. LOS Screening Analysis Results of the traffic capacity analysis performed for the 2025 Build year condition, for both the AM and PM peak periods, were reviewed at each of the study area intersections to determine the potential need for a microscale air quality analysis. The LOS screening criteria were first applied to identify those intersections with approach LOS D or worse. Based on the review of the intersections analyzed, only one intersection was projected to operate at a LOS D or worse on approaches for the AM or PM peak traffic periods: King Street and Anderson Hill Road. Capture Criteria Screening Analysis Further screening on the intersection identified in the LOS Screening Analysis was conducted using the Capture Criteria. This screening analysis indicated that none of the listed Capture Criteria would be met at the above intersection; therefore, a volume threshold screening analysis was not warranted. Volume Threshold Screening Since none of the Capture Criteria listed above were triggered, a Volume Threshold Screening analysis was not warranted. Therefore, detailed mobile source analysis for the Proposed Project was not warranted and Project-generated traffic would not result in a significant air quality impact. 3.11.4. Conclusions The Proposed Project would not result in potential significant adverse air quality impacts from stationary sources or mobile sources. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have significant adverse air quality impacts. 3.12. NOISE 3.12.1. Introduction The noise analysis considers the noise levels that would be produced by the Proposed Project and whether that noise would result in the potential to generate significant adverse noise impacts on the surrounding area. The noise impact assessment examines noise generated by traffic traveling to and from the Site, and the operation of mechanical equipment associated with 900 King Street. The following section examines the potential for impacts from these sources. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 63 October 26, 2017 Impact Criteria In this analysis, all measured noise levels are reported in dBA or A-weighted decibels, as described in Appendix G. In addition, the maximum 1-hour equivalent sound level (Leq(1)) has been selected as the noise descriptor to be used in the noise impact evaluation. The Leq(1) is the noise descriptor recommended by NYSDEC for noise impact evaluation, and is used to provide an indication of highest expected sound levels (see Appendix G for more detail). For purposes of this impact assessment, consistent with NYSDEC guidance, operations that would result in an increase of more than 6.0 dBA in ambient Leq(1) noise levels at receptor sites and produce ambient noise levels of more than 65 dBA at residences or 79 dBA at an industrial or commercial area would be considered to be a significant adverse noise impact resulting from the Proposed Project. These criteria are consistent with the NYSDEC guidance document (see Appendix G). The Rye Brook Village Noise Control Law, Chapter 158 of the Code of the Village of Rye Brook, includes restrictions on certain specific noise-producing activities and specifies acceptable hours of construction within the Village. There are no specific provisions of the Law that would apply to noise sources associated with the operation of the Proposed Project (i.e., vehicular traffic or mechanical equipment), and the Proposed Project is not expected to result in any violations of the Law. See Section 3.14, “Construction,” for an assessment of the potential environmental impacts during the construction of the Proposed Project. Mobile Source Noise Methodology Mobile sources consist of vehicles arriving at and departing from the Site. Proportional modeling was used to determine locations that had the potential for having significant noise impacts and to quantify the magnitude of those potential impacts. Using this technique, the prediction of future noise levels, where traffic is the dominant noise source, is based on a calculation using measured existing noise levels and predicted changes in traffic volumes to determine Future with the Proposed Project (Build) levels. Vehicular traffic volumes are converted into Passenger Car Equivalent (PCE) values, for which one medium-duty truck (having a gross weight between 9,900 and 26,400 pounds) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 13 cars, and one heavy-duty truck (having a gross weight of more than 26,400 pounds) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 47 cars, and one bus (vehicles designed to carry more than nine passengers) is assumed to generate the noise equivalent of 18 cars. Future noise levels are calculated using the following equation: FB NL - EX NL = 10 * log10 (FB PCE / EX PCE) where: FB NL = Future Build Noise Level EX NL = Existing Noise Level FB PCE = Future Build PCEs EX PCE = Existing PCEs Sound levels are measured in decibels. They increase logarithmically with sound source strength. In this case, the sound source is traffic volumes measured in PCEs. For example, assume that traffic is the dominant noise source at a particular location. If the existing traffic volume on a street is 100 PCE, and the future traffic volume increased by 50 PCE to a total of 150 PCE, the noise level would increase by 1.8 dBA. Similarly, if the future traffic were 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 64 DRAFT increased by 100 PCE, or doubled to a total of 200 PCE, the noise level would increase by 3.0 dBA. 3.12.2. Existing Conditions Selection of Noise Receptor Locations Noise was analyzed at six locations near the Site (shown in Table 25 and Figure 33): • Site 1 is located on King Street near Shady Lane. Vehicular traffic on King Street is the dominant noise source at this location with some audible noise from the Hutchinson River Parkway / Merritt Parkway. This location is representative of noise levels north of the Site. • Site 2 is located King Street at the intersection with Arbor Drive. Vehicular traffic on King Street is the dominant noise source at this location. This location is representative of noise levels directly east of the Site. • Site 3 is located on King Street at Glenville Street. Vehicular traffic on King Street is the dominant noise source at this location. This location is representative of noise levels at residential uses south of Blind Brook High School. • Site 4 is located on Arbor Drive at the driveway to the Site. Vehicular traffic on Arbor Drive is the dominant noise source at this location. This location is representative of noise levels at the Blind Brook High School sports facilities. • Site 5 is located near the boundary line between the Project Site and the Hutchinson River Parkway. Vehicular traffic on the Hutchinson River Parkway is the dominant noise source at this location. This location is representative of noise levels at the Project Site. • Site 6 is located near the boundary line between the Project Site and The Arbors townhouse development. Vehicular traffic on the Hutchinson River Parkway is the dominant noise source at this location. This location is representative of noise levels at The Arbors townhouse development. Table 25 Noise Monitoring Sites Receptor Location Land Use 1 King Street at Hutchinson River Parkway northbound Residential 2 King Street at Arbor Drive Residential 3 King Street at Glenville Street Residential 4 Arbor Drive and Site Entrance Residential, open space, and educational 5 Border of 900 King Street and Hutchinson River Parkway Proposed Residential 6 Border of 900 King Street and Arbor Drive Townhouses Residential These locations represent the noise-sensitive land uses that would be most likely to experience noise level increases due to the Proposed Project because of their proximity to the Site. Other sensitive land uses in the area would be expected to experience less noise resulting from the Proposed Project than these sites. Existing Noise Level Measurements At all six sites, 20-minute measurements were made during the weekday AM peak hour (7:30 AM to 9:30 AM) and weekday PM peak hour (4:30 PM to 6:30 PM). Measurements were taken on September 8, 2017. The selected time periods are when 900 King Street would have the maximum traffic generation and/or the maximum potential for significant adverse noise impacts based on the traffic studies presented in the TIS (see Appendix F). Technical Memorandum DRAFT 65 October 26, 2017 Equipment Used for Noise Monitoring Measurements were performed using Brüel & Kjær Sound Level Meters (SLM) Type 2260, a Brüel & Kjær ½-inch microphone Type 4189, and a Brüel & Kjær Sound Level Calibrator Type 4231. The SLMs had a laboratory calibration date within 1 year of the time of use, as is standard practice. The Brüel & Kjær SLMs are Type 1 instruments according to ANSI Standard S1.4-1983 (R2006). For all receptor sites the instrument/microphone was mounted on a tripod at a height of approximately 5 feet above the ground. Microphones were mounted at least approximately 5 feet away from any large reflecting surfaces. The SLMs were calibrated before and after readings with a Brüel & Kjær Type 4231 Sound Level Calibrator using the appropriate adaptor. Measurements at each location were made on the A-scale (dBA). The data were digitally recorded by the sound level meters and displayed at the end of the measurement period in units of dBA. Measured quantities included Leq, L1, L10, L50, L90, and ⅓ octave band levels. A windscreen was used during all sound measurements except for calibration. All measurement procedures were based on the guidelines outlined in ANSI Standard S1.13-2005. Results of Measurements The existing noise levels are summarized in Table 26. At all receptor sites, vehicular traffic noise on adjacent roadways was the dominant noise source. Measured noise levels were relatively low to moderately high and reflect the level of vehicular activity on the adjacent roadways. Table 26 Existing Noise Levels at Noise Receptor Sites (dBA) Site Location Time Leq L1 L10 L50 L90 1 King Street and Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on/off ramp AM 68.7 74.3 70.6 67.5 64.9 PM 69.4 75.2 71.1 68.6 66.1 2 King Street and Arbor Drive AM 72.5 80.7 75.8 70.6 61.3 PM 70.0 76.0 72.9 68.7 61.0 3 King Street and Glenville Street AM 71.4 83.2 73.2 67.6 60.0 PM 70.3 79.9 72.7 67.9 62.8 4 Arbor Drive and Site Entrance AM 60.7 71.3 64.5 55.8 50.8 PM 59.0 68.1 62.9 54.6 51.7 5 Border of 900 King Street and Hutchinson River Parkway AM 61.8 67.4 63.6 61.2 58.6 PM 62.7 68.2 64.9 62.1 59.4 6 Border of 900 King Street and Arbor Drive Townhouses AM 58.1 71.1 58.0 55.4 53.9 PM 59.7 69.9 63.1 55.7 54.0 Note: Field measurements were performed by AKRF, Inc. on September 8, 2017. 3.12.3. Potential Impacts of the Proposed Project The noise associated with the Proposed Project was calculated according to the methodology described above, and used to determine a total future noise level and increment at each of the receptor sites. Based on the TIS traffic data, the weekday AM and PM time hours were selected for analysis to represent when receptors would experience maximum Project-generated noise levels. A description of potential noise impacts during construction is included in Section 3.14, “Construction.” Mobile Sources Using the methodology described earlier, total future noise levels associated with the Proposed Project were calculated for each of the noise receptor sites. At receptor sites 5 and 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 66 DRAFT 6, where the Hutchinson River Parkway is the dominant source of noise, existing noise levels are assumed to be representative of noise levels in the Future with the Proposed Project, because vehicular traffic on the Hutchinson River Parkway would not change appreciably with the implementation of the Proposed Project, and consequently future noise levels would remain comparable to the measured existing noise levels. The projected future noise levels with the Proposed Project are shown in Table 27. Table 27 Build Condition Noise Levels (dBA) Site Location Time Existing Leq With Action Leq Change 1 King Street and Hutchinson River Parkway northbound on/off ramp AM 68.7 69.1 0.4 PM 69.4 69.8 0.4 2 King Street and Arbor Drive AM 72.5 72.9 0.4 PM 70.0 70.5 0.5 3 King Street and Glenville Street AM 71.4 72.5 1.1 PM 70.3 70.7 0.4 4 Arbor Drive and Site Entrance AM 60.7 61.5 0.8 PM 59.0 60.4 1.4 Comparing future noise levels with existing noise levels, the maximum increase in Leq(1) noise levels at Sites 1, 2, and 3 would be up to 1.1 dBA. Increases of this magnitude would be imperceptible and would be below the NYSDEC’s threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. Future noise levels at Sites 1, 2, and 3 would continue to exceed NYSDEC’s recommended level for residential uses of 65 dBA. While future noise levels at Sites 1, 2, and 3 would continue to exceed the recommended level of 65 dBA, the increases in noise levels as a result of the Proposed Project would be small and existing noise levels at these locations already exceed the recommended level of 65 dBA. Consequently, noise resulting from the Proposed Project would not constitute a significant noise impact at existing receptors represented by Sites 1, 2, and 3. The maximum increase in Leq(1) noise levels at Site 4 would be up to 1.4 dBA. Increases of this magnitude would be imperceptible and would be below the NYSDEC’s threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA. Future noise levels at Site 4 would remain below the NYSDEC’s recommended level for residential uses of 65 dBA. Since future noise levels at Site 4 would remain below the recommended level of 65 dBA and the increases in noise levels would be small, noise resulting from the Proposed Project would not constitute a significant adverse impact at existing receptors represented by Site 4. Noise Levels at The Arbors Townhouses Noise levels at The Arbors Townhouses—i.e., Site 6—are dominated by traffic on the Hutchinson River Parkway. Since vehicular traffic on the Hutchinson River Parkway is not expected to change significantly as a result of the Proposed Project, noise levels in the Future with the Proposed Project would not result in a significant noise level increase. Future noise levels at this location are expected to remain below NYCDEC’s recommended maximum level for residential uses of 65 dBA. Since future noise levels at Site 6 would remain below the recommended level of 65 dBA and the noise levels at Site 6 are not expected to increase appreciably as a result of the Proposed Project, noise resulting from the Proposed Project would not constitute a significant adverse impact at The Arbors Townhouses, as represented by Site 6. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 67 October 26, 2017 Noise Levels at the 900 King Street Residences Maximum noise levels at the proposed AL community, as represented by Sites 5 and 6, are predicted to be in the low to mid-60s dBA during the peak hours depending on distance from the Hutchinson River Parkway. Traffic on the Hutchinson River Parkway is not expected to increase substantially as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore the noise levels in the future with the building would not exceed the NYSDEC recommended noise level threshold for residential use. Furthermore, the proposed residential units would be constructed using standard façade construction including insulated glass windows and air conditioning allowing for the maintenance of a closed-window condition. With these measures, interior noise levels are expected to be less than 45 dBA, which is typically considered acceptable for residential use. Consequently, the level of noise exposure at the proposed residences would not constitute a significant adverse impact. Stationary Source Analysis While the Village of Rye Brook Administrative Code Chapter 158 “Noise” does not specify a maximum allowable sound level for mechanical equipment or heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) sources, the proposed buildings’ mechanical systems would be designed to avoid producing a 6.0 dBA or more increase at nearby receptors and consequently would not result in a significant adverse impact. 3.12.4. Conclusion The predicted noise levels associated with the Proposed Project would not exceed NYSDEC’s threshold for a significant noise level increase of 6.0 dBA at any receptor site, and the maximum future noise level associated with 900 King Street would not exceed the threshold established by the Codes of the Village of Rye Brook. In fact, the maximum increase in Leq(1) noise levels would be 1.4 dBA. Increases of this magnitude would be imperceptible. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse noise impacts. In addition, 900 King Street’s mechanical equipment would be designed to avoid a 6.0 dBA increase at nearby receptors and would therefore not result in a significant adverse impact. With these design parameters in place, no further mitigation is required. 3.13. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 3.13.1. Existing Conditions Topography and Subsurface Conditions Based on database information compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey and Westchester County Geographic Information System (GIS), the Property lies at elevations ranging from approximately 220 to 275 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1983 (an approximation of sea level), with ground sloping down to the southeast. Groundwater is anticipated to flow to the southeast trending with topography of the Property. However, actual groundwater flow at the Property can be affected by many factors, including past filling activities, bedrock configuration, underground utilities, and other subsurface openings or obstructions. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment To determine the potential for the presence of hazardous materials at the Site, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by AKRF, Inc. in October 2017 (see Appendix H). The ESA was conducted to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) and other environmental concerns associated with the Site resulting from past or 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 68 DRAFT current Site usage and usage of neighboring properties. RECs are defined in ASTM International (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-13 as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property. The Phase I ESA included a reconnaissance of the Site; a review of regulatory databases, including NYSDEC and EPA records; a review of historic fire insurance (Sanborn) maps and city directories; and a review of existing data on area geology and hydrogeology. The Phase I ESA identified the following RECs: • Regulatory databases indicate the Project Site was a historic generator of ignitable waste, corrosive waste, and spent halogenic solvents. Storage and handling of these wastes have the potential to have affected the subsurface. • Building department records indicated an abandoned steam boiler vault was removed in 2003. The likely fuel source for the steam boiler was fuel oil situated in either an aboveground or underground storage tank(s), which may have been removed when the former buildings were demolished. Potential buried debris from former on-site structures could contain historic fill of unknown origin and/or abandoned underground storage tanks (USTs). Based on the age of the previous structures on the Property, fuel oil may have historically been used for heating purposes. • Based on historic dry cleaner listings in the regulatory database, Putnam Services Unlimited, located at 941 King Street in Greenwich Connecticut, approximately 350 feet north-northeast of the Property, was listed as a carpet and upholstery cleaner in 1994 and 1995. Although no releases from Putnam Services Unlimited were reported, based on the proximity to the Property, if a release occurred, residual contaminants could be migrating through groundwater onto the subject property. In addition to the above RECs, the Phase I ESA noted other potential hazardous material concerns including: existing diesel generators, arsenic and insecticide associated with the historic arboretum on the Project Site, suspect asbestos-containing material (ACM), potential lead-based paint (LBP), and electrical and hydraulic equipment (including existing elevators and in-ground lift) that may include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or mercury-containing components. 3.13.2. Future with the Proposed Project Redevelopment of the Site would involve demolition of the existing building, followed by excavation (and potentially dewatering) for the Proposed Project. With the Proposed Project, the greatest potential for exposure to contaminated materials would occur during subsurface disturbance associated with construction of the new building(s) as part of the Proposed Project. Absent appropriate controls, as described below and which would be included as part of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project could potentially result in an increase in exposure for the community and construction workers. The potential for adverse impacts, however, would be avoided by performing construction of the Project in accordance with the following measures: • A Subsurface (Phase II) Investigation and geophysical survey would be conducted prior to redevelopment of the Site to identify and characterize potential subsurface contamination. The investigation would target the dumpster area, the generator area, the elevator machine room, the vicinity of the abandoned vault, and other areas of concern identified by the Phase I ESA. Based on the results of this investigation, a Construction-Phase Environmental Health and Safety Plan (CHASP) would be prepared for implementation during construction that would detail measures to be followed during construction (e.g., for soil management and Technical Memorandum DRAFT 69 October 26, 2017 disposal, dewatering, dust control, air monitoring for workers and the community, health and safety, tank removal and spill cleanup (if encountered), and any installation of necessary vapor controls for the new building) to address identified contamination and to include contingency measures to identify and address any unexpectedly encountered contamination. Remediation of any petroleum releases identified prior to or during construction would be completed in accordance with NYSDEC and/or Westchester County Department of Health requirements. • Prior to demolition, ACM surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure. All ACM would be removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. • Demolition activities with the potential to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62—Lead Exposure in Construction). • Prior to or as a part of demolition, all on-Site hazardous materials, including petroleum products, cleaning fluids, and PCB- and mercury-containing lighting fixtures and other electrical equipment would be removed from the Site and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. • If dewatering is required, treatment, and discharge of dewatering fluids would be conducted in accordance with all applicable regulations and guidance, including obtaining appropriate permits. • Appropriate erosion and sediment controls would be implemented in accordance with NYSDEC SWPPP requirements. With the implementation of these measures, no significant adverse impacts related to hazardous materials would be expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Following construction, there would be no further potential for adverse impacts. 3.14. CONSTRUCTION 3.14.1. Anticipated Construction Phasing Construction of the Proposed Project would be completed in a single phase estimated to last approximately 24–36 months. All construction activities would be conducted in full compliance with existing regulations, including local day and hour limitations on construction activity, as described below. Construction would generally proceed according to the following sequence, which is described in more detail below. • Pre-construction meeting • Installation of erosion and sediment control measures • Demolition of existing building • Clear undeveloped portion of property that is to be developed • Strip and stockpile topsoil • Begin building and parking lot construction, rough grading • Install storm drain and sanitary sewer system • Install utilities (gas, electric and telephone) as required • Install concrete and asphalt concrete pavement • Finish grading, redistribute topsoil and establish vegetation and/or landscaping • Clean pavements and storm drain system of all accumulated sediment in conjunction with the removal of all temporary sediment and erosion control devices. 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 70 DRAFT • Complete site and building construction. Pre-Construction/Site Preparation Prior to the start of any construction activity or site disturbance, a pre-construction meeting would be held with the contractor, the Village, and project engineer to discuss construction details, the approved Construction Management Plan (CMP), and ESCP. The ESCP, described below, details how the Project Site and surrounding wetlands and waterways will be protected from erosion and sedimentation during construction activity when soil would be disturbed. Site preparation would begin with the installation of security fencing at the access points to the Project Site and at the limits of disturbance as required to prevent unauthorized entry to construction areas, prevent access to areas that could be hazardous to the public, and to protect areas not proposed to be disturbed from damage from construction operations. The tree protection plan would also be implemented at this time, as described in Section 3.5 of this Memorandum. Stabilized construction entrance/exits would be established to prevent tracking of sediment outside of the Project Site. The construction entrance/exits would be constructed with 1- to 4- inch stone (or reclaimed or recycled concrete equivalent) layered over a filter fabric and would be at least 6 inches thick. The stabilized areas will be maintained regularly to prevent sediment from being tracked onto public rights-of-way. Construction equipment would initially be staged at the existing Site parking lot, and worker parking would also occur on the existing Site parking lot. At no time will worker parking, staging, or queuing of construction equipment occur on any public streets or along Arbor Drive. The duration of this phase will be approximately 1–2 months. Demolition/Grading Demolition would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 107 “Demolition of Buildings and Structures” of the Village Code. Demolition would begin by disconnecting all utility connections from the existing building and removing all appurtenances. This includes removal of the existing building and all structures, light fixtures and conduits, walkways, and parking lots. Once the existing building and utilities are removed, the area for the proposed temporary sediment traps would be cleared and grubbed and top soil would be stockpiled on-Site. As described in Section 3.13 of this Memorandum, prior to the demolition of the building, ACM surveys would be conducted throughout the existing structure. All ACM would be removed prior to demolition by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Demolition activities with the potential to disturb LBP would be performed in accordance with the applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulation (OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62—Lead Exposure in Construction). Finally, all on-Site hazardous materials, including petroleum products, cleaning fluids, and PCB- and mercury-containing lighting fixtures and other electrical equipment would be removed from the Site and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements prior to the demolition of the existing Site building. As described in Section 3.2.1 “Soils”, the site grading design is anticipated to generate approximately 42,600 cubic yards of earthen cut material, and approximately 51,600 cubic Technical Memorandum DRAFT 71 October 26, 2017 yards of earthen fill material will be required, resulting in approximately 9,000 cubic yards of additional material to be brought to the Site by truck. Assuming 20-yard capacity trucks, approximately 420 truck trips would be required to come to the site to provide the required fill. This would occur over an approximately 3 month period, with approximately 6-7 trucks entering and exiting the site daily during the work week. The duration of this construction phase would be approximately 6–8 months. Building Construction The major components of the building construction stage involve installation of utilities and infrastructure, pouring the foundations, erecting the structures of the buildings, interior finishing work, and landscaping. This would be the most intensive stage of the construction process where material deliveries would take place regularly. Once construction work is completed, all disturbed areas will be restored and the Site will be landscaped according to the approved landscaping plan. The duration of this phase will be approximately 17–26 months. 3.14.2. Potential for Construction Period Impacts Adverse impacts from the construction of the Proposed Project would be avoided through the implementation of a detailed CMP. The CMP would be prepared by the Applicant, in close coordination with Village staff and consultants, and would be approved as part of the Final Site Plan approval and be made a condition thereof. The Village would, therefore, be able to enforce the provisions of the CMP throughout the construction process. The CMP would provide for implementation of the SWPPP and ESCP, as well as the measures to avoid impacts to traffic, air quality, and noise, as described below. With the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of the CMP, construction of the Proposed Project would not be expected to have a significant adverse environmental impact. Erosion and Sediment Control Potential impacts associated with construction activities include sediment deposition, rilling and erosion, and the potential for causing turbidity within receiving waterbodies. To avoid an adverse impact from soil erosion, the Proposed Project would conform to the requirements of NYSDEC State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity Permit No. GP-0-15-002, the “New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control,” dated July 2016, and Chapter 118 “Erosion and Sediment Control” of the Village Code. The permit requires that proposed projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land must develop a SWPPP, containing both temporary erosion control measures during construction and post-construction stormwater management practices to avoid flooding and water quality impacts in the long term. An ESCP is included with the full size set of drawings. The ESCP depicts the measures to be utilized to control erosion and sediment leaving the Site. These measures, described in more detail below, include two stabilized construction entrances, the limit of disturbance beyond which no soil disturbance is to occur, the installation of silt fencing, inlet protection and other measures as described below, which would be used throughout the construction period to minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation impacts from construction of the Proposed Project. • Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit (SCE)—The SCEs would have a stabilized aggregate pad underlain with filter cloth to prevent construction vehicles from tracking 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 72 DRAFT sediment off-Site. SCEs would be located at specific transition areas between concrete/asphalt to exposed earth. • Silt Fence—Silt fence would be installed on the down gradient edge of disturbed areas parallel to existing or proposed contours or along the property line as perimeter control. Silt fence would be used where stakes can be properly driven into the ground as per the Silt Fence detail in the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control and as shown on the full sized drawings. Silt fence controls sediment runoff where the soil has been disturbed by slowing the flow of water and encouraging the deposition of sediment before the water passes through the straw bale or silt fence. Built-up sediment would be removed from silt fences when it has reached one-third the height of the bale/fence and would be properly disposed. • Storm Drain Inlet Protection—Inlet protection would be installed at all inlets where the surrounding area has been disturbed. The inlet protection would be constructed in accordance with NYSDEC Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Typically, they would be constructed to pass stormwater through, but prevent silt and sediment from entering the drainage system. • Stockpile Detail—Stockpiled soil would be protected, stabilized, and sited in accordance with the Soil Stockpile Detail, as shown on the detail sheets. Soil stockpiles and exposed soil would be stabilized by seed, mulch, or other appropriate measures when activities temporarily cease during construction for 7 days or more in accordance with NYSDEC requirements. • Dust Control—During the demolition and construction process, debris and any disturbed earth would be wet down with water, if necessary, to control dust. After demolition and construction activities, all disturbed areas would be covered and/or vegetated to provide for dust control on the Site. • Temporary Seeding and Stabilization—In areas where demolition and construction activities, clearing, and grubbing have ceased, temporary seeding or permanent landscaping would be performed to control sediment laden runoff and provide stabilization to control erosion during storm events. This temporary seeding/stabilization or permanent landscaping would be in place no later than 14 days after demolition and construction activity has ceased. • Sump Pit—Depending on the results of the geotechnical investigations, a temporary pit may be necessary to trap and filter water for pumping to a suitable discharge area. The purpose would be to remove excessive water from excavations. Sump pits would be constructed when water collects during the excavation phase of construction. • Dewatering—Depending on the results of the geotechnical investigations, there may be areas of construction where the groundwater table would be intercepted and dewatering activities would take place. Site-specific practices and appropriate filtering devices would be employed by the contractor so as to avoid discharging turbid water to the surface waters of the State of New York. • Temporary Sediment Trap—The purpose of a sediment trap is to intercept sediment-laden runoff and filter the sediment laden stormwater runoff leaving the disturbed area in order to protect drainage ways, properties, and rights-of-way below the sediment trap. The trap would be installed down gradient of construction operations that expose critical areas to soil erosion. The trap would be maintained until the disturbed area is protected against erosion by permanent stabilization. Technical Memorandum DRAFT 73 October 26, 2017 • Materials Handling—The contractor would store construction and waste materials as far as practical from any environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands). Where possible, materials would be stored in a covered area to minimize runoff. The contractor would incorporate storage practices to minimize exposure of the materials to stormwater, and spill prevention and response where necessary. Prior to commencing any construction activities, the contractor would obtain all necessary permits or verify that all permits have been obtained. A continuing maintenance program would be implemented for the control of sediment transport and erosion control after construction and throughout the useful life of the project. With the implementation and continuing maintenance of the ESCP that would be approved by the Village and the NYSDEC, construction of the Proposed Project would not be expected to result in a significant adverse impact from sedimentation or erosion. Construction Traffic Construction of the Proposed Project at 900 King Street would create daily construction-related traffic to and from the Project Site, including construction workers and the delivery of materials and equipment. The numbers and types of vehicles would vary depending on the phase of construction. All construction equipment, materials, deliveries and worker parking would be accommodated on-Site. There would be no construction equipment, truck, material, or worker queuing or staging permitted on Arbor Drive at any time. This requirement, as well as a detailed plan that delineates areas of construction worker parking, truck queuing and unloading, and material and equipment staging, would be included in the CMP. Manpower for typical construction projects fluctuates over the duration of the project in a bell-shaped curve. Beginning and ending months have relative low manpower and, during the middle of the schedule, manpower peaks. The number of workers on-Site during construction will vary, but an average of 30 workers per day would be expected at the Site. During the peak on-Site construction activity, which typically occurs during building construction, as many as 40–50 workers per day could be at the Site. The peak hour for construction worker arrivals on-Site would be 7:30A.M–8:00 AM in the morning (compared with 7:30 AM–8:30 AM on the roadway network) and 4:00 PM–4:30 PM in the afternoon (compared with 5:00 PM–6:00 PM on the roadway network). At the busiest times, workers could generate 50 construction peak-hour trips. This is less than the number of peak-hour trips estimated for the Proposed Project’s operation (61 in the AM peak hour and 78 in the PM peak hour), as stated in Section 10 of this Memorandum. Therefore, since the traffic generated by the operation of the Proposed Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the roadway network, construction worker traffic would similarly not be expected to have a significant adverse impact on the roadway network. Construction truck movements would be spread throughout the day and would generally occur between the hours of 7:30 AM and 3:30 PM, depending on the period of construction. As such, they would not coincide with the peak PM highway hour. During the demolition and foundation stages, an estimated 10 to 30 trucks would visit the Site daily. The minimal number of truck trips that could occur during the AM peak hour would not be expected to create an adverse impact to the roadway network. Heavy construction equipment is typically brought to the site at the beginning of the project and kept on the site for the duration of the project, thereby minimizing trips. Construction trucks would be expected to use one of the following routes to access the Project Site: 900 King Street Redevelopment October 26, 2017 74 DRAFT • I-684 Southbound to Manhattanville Road to Purchase Street to Anderson Hill Road to King Street; • I-287 eastbound to Westchester Avenue and Anderson Hill Road to King Street; • I-95 northbound to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street or I-287 to Boston Post Road (US Route 1) to King Street; or, • I-95 southbound to Exit 2 to Delavan Avenue to North Main Street (US Route 1) to King Street via Willet Avenue or Adee Street. The use of these major area roadways for construction trucks would not be expected to create a significant adverse impact to the roadway network, as these roads typically carry heavy vehicles. Construction-Period Noise Construction of the Proposed Project would typically generate noise and vibration from construction equipment, construction vehicles, worker traffic, and delivery vehicles traveling to and from the Project Site. Noise levels caused by construction activities would vary widely, depending on the phase of construction—demolition, excavations, foundation, construction of the structures, etc.—and the specific task being undertaken. All construction activities would be conducted in full compliance with the Village’s Noise Ordinance (Chapter 158 of the Village Code). Specifically, as required by §158-4A(1) of the Village Code, operation of any construction equipment, machinery, tool or other device that makes noise audible beyond the Project Site would only take place between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM or dusk, whichever is earlier, Monday through Friday (except holidays), and between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on Saturdays (except holidays). Local, state, and federal requirements mandate that certain classifications of construction equipment and motor vehicles be used to minimize adverse impacts. Thus, construction equipment would meet specific noise emission standards. Significant noise levels typically occur nearest the construction activities, and may reach as high as 90 dBA under worst-case conditions. The level of noise at local receptors would depend on the construction activities involved, the noise emission of the involved equipment, the location of the equipment and the hours of operation. Noise levels would decrease with distance from the construction site. Increased noise levels due to construction activity would be highest during the early construction phases such as demolition, excavation, and foundation work. These phases would be relatively short in duration and noise generated would be intermittent based on the equipment in use and the work being done. While the exact numbers of construction equipment that would be utilized has not been finalized, it is known that certain equipment, including excavators, bulldozers, backhoes, graders, and dump trucks, would be required. Site work proximate (150 feet to 200 feet) to the most sensitive off-Site receptors—the residential buildings to the northeast of the Project Site and the west of the Project Site, as well as the school to the south of the Site—would be limited to a few months. Much of the Site work would occur several hundred feet away from these sensitive receptors, thereby reducing potential adverse noise impacts. As stated above, construction activities would comply with the hour limitations in Chapter 158 of the Village Code to minimize noise intrusion from construction activities during weekends and nights when most families are at home. In addition, construction equipment utilized would incorporate sound attenuation practices to further reduce the potential impact Technical Memorandum DRAFT 75 October 26, 2017 to sensitive receptors. Based on the temporary and intermittent nature of construction noise incident at surrounding noise receptors, together with the fact that the construction activities with the most potential to create a significant noise impact would occur proximate to sensitive receptors for only a short period of time, it is the Applicant’s opinion that the potential noise generated by the construction of the Proposed Project would not create a significant adverse noise impact. Construction-Period Air Quality Air quality impacts associated with construction activities are typically the result of fugitive dust or emissions from vehicles or equipment. Fugitive dust can result from earth moving, including grading and excavation, and from driving construction vehicles over dry, unpaved surfaces. While a large proportion of fugitive dust would be of relatively large particle size and would be expected to settle within a short distance of being generated and thus not affect off-Site receptors, measures to minimize and avoid this potential impact to the maximum extent practicable would be incorporated into the Proposed Project and would be included in the CMP, which would be reviewed and approved by the Village during Site Plan approval. The erosion and dust control procedures that would be implemented would include: • Minimizing the area of soil that is disturbed at any one time; • Minimizing the amount of time during which soils are exposed; • Installing truck mats or anti-tracking pads at egress points to clean the trucks’ tires prior to leaving the Project Site; • Watering of exposed areas during dry periods; • Using drainage diversion methods (e.g., silt fences) to minimize soil erosion during Site grading; • Covering stored materials with a tarp to reduce windborne dust; • Limiting on-Site construction vehicle speed to 5 mph; and • Using truck covers/tarp rollers that cover fully loaded trucks and keep debris and dust from being expelled from the truck along its haul route. Vehicle emissions from construction vehicles and equipment have the potential to result in elevated levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and CO. The greatest potential for impact is typically associated with heavy duty equipment that is used for short durations. The following measures would be incorporated into the CMP, which would be reviewed and approved by the Village during Site Plan approval, to minimize emissions from construction vehicles and equipment to the maximum extent practicable: • Ultra-low sulfur diesel would be utilized for all construction equipment and vehicles; • All equipment would be properly maintained; and • Idling of construction or delivery vehicles or other equipment would not be allowed when the equipment is not in active use. Implementation of the measures listed above would avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts to air quality during construction of the Proposed Project. With the implementation of these measures, no significant adverse impact to air quality during construction is expected.  10/25/2017 Figure 1 Project Location 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK K i n g S t S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A N Ridge St GlenRidgeRd Ar bor Dr Hutchinson River Pkwy GlenvilleSt Shady Ln GreenwayClose Ettl L n Treetop L n G r e e n w ay Cir Exit30S B a y b e r r y L n W a l ker C t I v y H i l l C r e s G r e e n w a y L n Ivy Hill Ln Brush Hollow C r es W a l k e r C t Project Site VT NH MANY PA CT RI NJ AREA OF DETAIL 0 580 FEET 10/25/2017 Figure 2 Project Site Aerial 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Project Site 0 580 FEET 10.25.17 900 KING STREET Existing building from Arbor Drive looking east Wetland/vegetative buffer along the Project Site’s western property line Figure 3 Existing Site Condition 10.25.17 900 KING STREET Existing Site Condition Figure 4 Vegetative buffer along the Project Site’s northern property line Wetland/vegetative buffer along the Project Site’s eastern property line 10.25.17 900 KING STREET Figure 5 Existing Site Condition Existing parking lot Existing parking lot 10/25/2017 Figure 6 Zoning Map 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK N Ridge St S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A K i n g S t S h a d y L n Glen Ridge Rd Arbor Dr Hutchinson River Pkwy State Hwy 15 Ettl L n Ramp G r e e n wa y L n Treetop L n F a i r l a w n P k w y W a t c h H i l l D r B a y b e r r y L n Exit30S W a l ker C t I v y H i l l C r e s Ivy Hill Ln Brush Hollow C r es W a l k e r C t P.U.D. R-15 R-20 R-20 R-15 R-20 R-12 Project Site Zoning Districts 0 580 FEET 10/25/2017 Figure 7 Existing Soil Conditions 900 KING STREET Uf UhB UhB ChB PnB UhC WdB UpB Uf UhC UwB ChB Ub Uf PnC UpB WdB ChC CrC UpB UhB UmC UpC UwB Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Project Site Soil Map Units Limit of Disturbance 0 200 FEET Note: Bold type denotes soil map units located within the Project Site boundaries 10/25/2017 Figure 8 Topography 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T N Ridge St S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A K i n g S t Arbor Dr Glen Ridge R d Hutchinson River Pkwy State Hwy 15 GlenvilleSt E t t l L n Bayberry Close GreenwayClose R a m p Treetop Ln S h a d y L n Watc h H i l l D r M e a d o w l a r k R d G r e e n w a y Cir Exit30S Exit27 B a y b e r r y L n W a l ker Ct I v y H i l l C r e s G r e e n w a y L n Ivy Hill Ln Brush Hollow C res F a i r l a w n P k w y W a l k e r C t 6 0 5 0 7 0 60 7 0 6 0 60 50 8 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 70 60 7 0 80 7 0 7 0 8 0 7 0 Project Site 0 580 FEET 10 . 2 5 . 1 7 St e e p S l o p e s 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Fi g u r e 9 A R C H I T E C T : A P P L I C A N T / O W N E R :Dra w i n g N o : Proj e c t N o : Date : Sca l e : Dra w n : Appr o v e d : AN Y A L T E R A T I O N O F P L A N S , SPE C I F I C A T I O N S , P L A T S A N D RE P O R T S B E A R I N G T H E S E A L OF A L I C E N S E D P R O F E S S I O N A L ENG I N E E R O R L I C E N S E D L A N D SUR V E Y O R I S A V I O L A T I O N O F SE C T I O N 7 2 0 9 O F T H E N E W YOR K S T A T E E D U C A T I O N L A W , EXC E P T A S P R O V I D E D F O R B Y SEC T I O N 7 2 0 9 , S U B S E C T I O N 2 . PR O G R E S S PL O T T I N G Dra w i n g : 16 2 2 2 E X I S T I N G Dat e : 20 1 7 - 0 8 - 3 0 Tim e : 11: 2 0 A M By: N o . R e v i s i o n D a t e B y C O P Y R I G H T © 2017 b y J M C All Rights Reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of JMC PLANNING, ENGINEERING, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE & LAND SURVEYING, PLLC | JMC SITE DEVELOPMENT C O N 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 r m i s 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 . S o u r c e : J M C E n g i n e e r i n g Sl o p e : 1 5 % – 2 5 % Sl o p e : 2 5 % – 3 5 % Sl o p e : 3 5 % – V e r t i c a l 10.17.17 N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C Wetland E Wetland D Stream A Stream S So u r c e : A K R F W e t l a n d D e l i n e a t i o n Project Site 0 580 FEET 900 KING STREET Figure 10 Wetlands and Waterbodies Wetland Stream 8.24.17 Backyard9,300 sf NorthernTownhouse Yard11,270 sf Southern Townhouse Yard12,475 sf North and West Lawn29,125 sf Memory Garden9,300 sf Linear WalkingPaths26,260 sf Figure 11 8.25.17 900 KING STREET N Potential Wetland Buffer Mitigation Areas Potential Wetland Buffer Mitigation Areas 10/25/2017 Figure 12 Architectural Resources 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK NRidgeSt S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A K i n g S t Glen Rid ge Rd A r b o r Dr Hutchinson River Pkwy State Hwy 15 Exit 29 T r e e t o p L n S h a d y L n W a t c h H i l l D r R a m p B a y b e r r y L n Exit27 I v y H i l l C r e s G r e e n w a y L n Ivy Hill Ln B r u s h Hollow Cres E ttl L n F a i r l a w n P k w y W a l k e r C t !A Project Site 400-foot Study Area Known Architectural Resource—Merritt Parkway Potential Architectural Resource—942 King Street 0 580 FEET !A 10.25.17 Historic Photographs Figure 13 1Merritt Parkway 900 KING STREET 2942 King Street 10/25/2017 Figure 14 On-Site Visual Character Locations 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K G I C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook A B D E F H C Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A K i n g S t N Ridge St S h a d y L n Glen Ridge Rd Ar bor Dr Hutchinson River Pkwy State Hwy 15 Ramp Bru s h H o l l o w C r e s Tr e e t o p L n W a t c h H i l l D r Exit30S W a l ker C t I v y H i l l C r e s Ivy Hill Ln W a l k e r C t Project Site Photograph View Direction and Reference No 0 500 FEET A 10.25.17 900 KING STREET BExisting building from Arbor Drive looking east AWetland/vegetative buffer along the Project Site’s western property line Figure 15 Locations A & B 10.25.17 900 KING STREET DFront of existing building from parking lot CExisting building from Arbor Drive looking west Locations C & D Figure 16 10.25.17 900 KING STREET Figure 17 Locations E & F FExisting parking lot EExisting parking lot 10.25.17 900 KING STREET HVegetative buffer along the Project Site’s northern property line GWetland/vegetative buffer along the Project Site’s eastern property line Locations G & H Figure 18 10.25.17 900 KING STREET IExisting parking lot and building Location I Figure 19 10/25/2017 Figure 20 Vantage Point Locations 900 KING STREET N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook VP1 VP2 VP3 VP4aVP4b VP5 VP6 VP7 VP8 Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK Arbor Dr N Ridge St S t a t e H w y 1 2 0 A K i n g S t Glen Ridge R d Hutchinson River Pkwy State Hwy 15 Ramp Exit27 Ettl L n F a i r l a w n P k w y Treetop L n S h a d y L n W a t c h H i l l D r B a y b e r r y L n Exit30S Brush Hollow Cres W a l ker C t I v y H i l l C r e s Ivy Hill Ln W a l k e r C t Project Site Photograph View Direction and Reference No 0 580 FEET VP1 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 1 Fi g u r e 2 1 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 2 Fi g u r e 2 2 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 3 Fi g u r e 2 3 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 4 a Fi g u r e 2 4 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 4 b Fi g u r e 2 5 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 5 Fi g u r e 2 6 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 6 Fi g u r e 2 7 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 7 Fi g u r e 2 8 10 . 2 6 . 1 7 90 0 K I N G S T R E E T Ex i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n Pr o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n Ex i s t i n g a n d P r o p o s e d C o n d i t i o n s — V a n t a g e P o i n t 8 Fi g u r e 2 9 10.25.17 900 KING STREET The Atria, Rye Brook Photo of Atria Rye Brook Figure 30 3-story 4-story 10.25.17 900 KING STREET Hilton Westchester Doral Arrowwood Doral Arrowwood and Hilton Westchester Figure 31 4-story hotel wing 5-story hotel wings 4-story hotel wing Backyard9,300 sf NorthernTownhouse Yard11,270 sf Southern Townhouse Yard12,475 sf North and West Lawn29,125 sf Memory Garden9,300 sf Linear WalkingPaths26,260 sf Figure 32 8.25.17 900 KING STREET N Open and Recreational Spaces On-Site On-Site Recreation Areas (Approximate Square Footage) 10/25/2017 Figure 33 Noise Measurement Locations 900 KING STREET ! ! ! ! ! ! N E W Y O R K C O N N E C T I C U T Rye Brook Greenwich HUTCHINSON RIVER PKWY LANDS HARKNESS PARK K i n g S t E ttl L n Arbor Dr Hutchinson River Pkwy Shady Ln Glenville St GreenwayClose Treetop L n G r e e n w a y Cir Exit30S B a y b e r r y L n W a l ker C t I v y H i l l C r e s G r e e n w a y L n Ivy Hill Ln Brush Hollow Cr es W a l k e r C t 1 2 3 4 5 6 Project Site !Noise Measurement Location VT NH MANY PA CT RI NJ AREA OF DETAIL 0 580 FEET 1