Loading...
2015-06-11 Planning Bd Report and Recommendation to BOT June 11, 2015 __APPROVED 7-0__ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY BUCKINGHAM PARTNERS/SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET BE IT RESOLVED, that the Rye Brook Planning Board hereby submits the attached Report and Recommendation, as amended, to the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on an application by Buckingham Partners/Sun Homes for approval of a Concept Plan, zone change and zoning text amendment for a residential community of 110 single- family dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street. On a motion by Ms. Schoen, second by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Michael Nowak, Village Engineer, called the roll: APPROVING THE REFERRAL RESOLUTION: Ayes: ACCURSO, GOODMAN, GRZAN, MORLINO, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA, ZUCKERMAN Nays: Abstain: Excused: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD TO THE RYE BROOK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ON AN APPLICATION BY BUCKINGHAM PARTNERS/SUN HOMES FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN, ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OF 110 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1100 KING STREET I. APPLICATION OVERVIEW The Rye Brook Board of Trustees is currently considering an application by Buckingham Partners/Sun Homes (“Applicant”) for approval of a PUD Concept Plan, zone change and zoning text amendment for a residential community consisting of 110 dwelling units on real property located at 1100 King Street (the “Property”). Specifically, the Applicant seeks approval of a Concept Plan for the construction a residential community on Parcel 129.25-1-1, located directly behind the Reckson Executive Park (the “REP”) on King Street, currently in the OB-1 Zoning District. The development will include 100 attached and detached market rate dwellings, 10 affordable housing units as well as a pool, club house, streets, on-street parking areas, communal open space and storm water retention areas. The Applicant has also mentioned the possibility of a local trail network as part of the project. To facilitate the project, the Applicant requests that the Board of Trustees re-zone the Property from the OB-1 to the PUD Zoning District and that the PUD zoning regulations be amended to allow the Board of Trustees to alter or waive certain floor area and buffer zone requirements to permit larger units than would otherwise be permitted in the PUD development. Proposed text changes were submitted to the Village on pages 4- 5 of the letter from William S. Null, Esq., dated February 10, 2015. -2- On February 24, 2015, the Board of Trustees referred the application to the Planning Board for consideration and for a report and recommendation thereon pursuant to Section 209-3 of the Village Code. The Planning Board reviewed the application at its meetings on March 12, 2015; April 9, 2015; May 14, 2015, and June 11, 2015. In addition, the Planning Board members met with the Applicant for a site visit on April 25, 2015, at the Applicant’s residential development in Darien, Connecticut, to observe the Applicant’s work first-hand. II. MATERIALS REVIEWED The Planning Board reviewed the following printed materials in connection with its review of the application and preparation of the within Report and Recommendation: 1. Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 and EAF Mapper Summary 2. Traffic Impact Study by Maser Consulting, P.A., Hawthorne, N.Y., dated January 14, 2015 3. ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey prepared by Joseph Link, Mahopac, N.Y., dated as of January 26, 2015, signed February 9, 2015 4. Letter and Petition to the Mayor Rosenberg and the Board of Trustees prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated February 10, 2015 5. Memorandum to the Village Engineer and the Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering , P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y. dated March 3, 2015 6. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated March 9, 2015 7. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated March 31, 2015 8. Letter to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. dated May 7, 2015 9. School Aged Children, Sun Homes, Rye Brook prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. no date 10. Revised Rendered Illustrative Plan, Affordable Home Plans and Elevations, illustrative plan prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date 11. Rendered Illustrative Plan, Home Plans and Elevations, illustrative plan prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe , LLP, White Plains, N.Y., no date -3- 12. Memorandum and Revised Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Maser Consulting, P.A., Hawthorne, N.Y. dated April 15, 2015 13. Letter to Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Cuddy & Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated May 7, 2015 14. Rye Brook Emergency Service Task Force Review Memorandum to William Null, Esq. prepared by the Rye Brook Building and Fire Inspector, dated May 7, 2015 15. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated May 13, 2015 16. Memorandum to the Village Engineer, Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Dolph Rotfeld Engineering, P.C., Tarrytown, N.Y., dated May 14, 2015 17. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated May 19, 2015 18. Memorandum to Planning Board and Village Planning Consultant prepared by Maser Consulting, P.A., Hawthorne, N.Y., dated May 26, 2015 19. Letter to Chairman and Planning Board prepared by Cuddy and Feder, LLP, White Plains, N.Y., dated May 27, 2015 20. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., dated May 29, 2015 21. Memorandum to the Chairman and Planning Board prepared by F.P. Clark Associates, Inc., date June 1, 2015 22. Engineer’s Plans, prepared by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, White Plains, N.Y.: Sheet Number Sheet Title Date SP-0.1 Illustrative Plan Undated SP-1.0 Conceptual Site Plan 02/09/15, revised 5/7/15, 5/13/15, 5/27/15 SP-2.0 Conceptual Grading &Utility Plan 02/09/15, revised 5/13/15 No Number Misc. site cross-sections and floor plans Undated, revised 5/13/15, 5/27/15 III. DISCUSSION The Planning Board, upon review of the aforementioned materials and based upon discussions at its March 12, April 9, May 14 and June 11, 2015 meetings, and the Darien site visit on April 25, 2015, makes the following observations, comments and recommendations with respect to the application: -4- A. General Comments The Planning Board notes that the scope of the Report and Recommendation is limited to review of the PUD Concept Plan, proposed re-zoning and zoning text amendments requested by the Applicant. Review at this stage is considered Phase 1 of the two-phased review for all Planned Unit Developments in the Village pursuant to Section 250-7(E)(4) of the Village Code. Phase II shall include subdivision approval (if applicable) and detailed site plan review, which shall include all necessary drawings, specifications and such details concerning covenants, easements, conditions and performance bonds. B. Affordable Housing Units 1. Configuration The proposal includes ten (10) affordable housing units clustered together near the northeast corner of the site. As currently proposed, these units will be architecturally indistinguishable and, like the market rate units, will feature full-length (i.e. 20 foot) driveways and garages located beneath the homes. They will also have screened and landscaped rear yards similar to those of the market rate units. They will also be the largest affordable housing units in the County to date. Originally, these units did not feature attached garages or driveways. Rather, attached garages were located across the street from the proposed units. In addition, the units stood out from the market rate units in that they were attached in groupings of five (split between two buildings) rather than being detached or grouped together in buildings of two or three units apiece. The Planning Board also noted that the units were clustered -5- together in the northeast corner of the property rather than being interspersed among the market rate units. Overall, the Planning Board favors the proposed design of the affordable units and commends the Applicant on developing a creative design that will make the units visually indistinguishable from the rest of the development. The changes made to these units so far will greatly enhance their cohesion with the rest of the proposal. However, the Planning Board continues to express concern over the clustering of the units in a single location. The Village Code requires: AFFH Units shall be physically integrated into the design of the development and shall be distributed among the various housing unit sizes … in the same proportion as market-rate units in the development. The AFFH Units shall not be distinguishable from the market-rate units from the outside or building exteriors. Interior finishes and furnishings may differ in quality from those of the market-rate units. Village Code § 250-26.1F(4)(b). The Planning Board feels that clustering the units in a single area might violate this section of the Village Code and engender social separation between families residing in the affordable housing units and those residing in the rest of the development. Therefore, the Planning Board recommends that the Applicant give further consideration to the placement of the affordable housing units. 2. Maintenance Costs and Amenities The Planning Board asked the Applicant how the owners of the affordable units will be charged for maintenance of common improvements, such as landscaping and -6- access roads, and for use of recreational amenities, including the club house and pool. The Board cautioned the Applicant that excluding the owners of the affordable housing units from using the amenities may be viewed as discriminatory. The Board expressed doubt that the Applicant will be able to set up an organizational structure which creates two separate homeowners associations (one for the market rate unit owners and one for the affordable housing unit owners), or in the alternative, provide the affo rdable unit owners an a la carte option to purchase membership to use the amenities, without inviting discrimination claims. The Applicant explained that if the affordable housing unit owners are required to pay the same charges as the market rate unit owners, the cost will likely be more than the affordable unit owners can afford. Conversely, allowing the affordable housing units owners to pay less for the same amenities would require the market rate unit owners to subsidize the affordable housing units. An acceptable resolution of this issue still needs to be determined, but is more appropriately addressed during the Phase II site plan review. Regardless of the outcome, the Planning Board urges the Board of Trustees to seek a resolution which is consistent with the requirements for affordable housing units established by the Monitor appointed pursuant to the affordable housing settlement with the County and best achieves the Village’s goal of fully-integrated affordable housing. -7- C. Traffic The Applicant provided a Traffic Impact Study by Maser Consulting, P.A., dated January 14, 2015, concerning the predicted traffic impacts associated with the Project. This study was later supplemented by memoranda from Maser dated April 15, 2015 and May 26, 2015. The Village Planning Consultant, Michael Galante, of F.P. Clark Associates, provided responsive comments to each of these documents in a series of memoranda dated March 31, 2015, May 19, 2015 and June 1, 2015. At the conclusion of his review of the Applicant’s supplemented traffic study, Mr. Galante was satisfied that, with adjustment to traffic signal timing, the proposal will not cause significant adverse traffic impacts. The traffic signal timing adjustments would need to be approved by both the NYS DOT and the Connecticut DOT, which has jurisdiction over the intersection of Anderson Hill Road and King Street. The only outstanding comment from Mr. Galante is his recommendation that two dead ends located within the development be converted to turnabouts. Mr. Galante accepts the Applicant’s representation that turnabouts at these locations are not feasible due to lack of available space, but noted that he will investigate the matter further during formal site plan review. Several Planning Board members continue to express concern about the scope of the Maser Study. It has been noted that the Study covers only two intersections: (i) Anderson Hill Road and King Street and (ii) International Drive and King Street. However, based on the size of the proposed development, the Planning Board members question whether there may be significant impacts on other intersections and roads as -8- well. The Planning Board observes that cumulative traffic impacts are slowly congesting many of the Village’s heavily trafficked roadways and intersections, a condition which may worsen as a direct result of this development. Therefore, the Planning Board members feel that consideration should be given to expanding the scope of the Traffic Impact Study to determine if mitigation measures may be needed elsewhere than at the two intersections noted above. D. School Children The Applicant provided an undated analysis by Divney, Tung, Schwalbe, LLP, entitled “School Aged Children, Sun Homes, Rye Brook” (the “Divney Analysis”) concerning the estimated number of school aged children that will enter the Blind Brook/Rye Union Free School District if the Project is built as currently proposed. The Divney Analysis concluded that, depending on the methodology, either 39, 46 or 72 school aged children are expected to attend Blind Brook schools in connection with this Project. On review, the Village Planning Consultant, Marilyn Timpone-Mohamed of F.P. Clark Associates, concluded that the Divney Analysis was based on accepted methodology and assumptions used in calculating school aged children and, in fact, was based on more reliable assumptions than would have been used under the Rutgers Study standard, which is often used as a metric for the calculation of school aged children. However, at the Planning Board meeting on May 14, 2015, Chairman Zuckerman noted that the number of school aged children from the Bellefair development was significantly -9- greater than the number of school aged children estimated for that project. Doubt was also expressed regarding these numbers at a recent meeting of the Blind Brook School Board and at a joint meeting of the School Board and the Rye Brook Board of Trustees on June 8, 2015, during which it was claimed that more than 100 children could attend Blind Brook schools from the development. The Board members also noted that an increase in school aged children could also have an indirect impact on traffic in certain areas of the Village. Therefore, the Board of Trustees may wish to collect additional information on this subject to further assess the potential impact associated with school aged children generated by the development. E. Buffering The Board expressed concern over the level of screening separating the development and the REP parking lot to the north/northeast of the project site. In particular, the Planning Board felt that the buffer between the affordable housing units and the REP parking lot might not be sufficient to sufficiently screen the rear of those units from the parking lot. In response to these comments, the Applicant has increased the proposed buffer on this side of the project site from 30 feet to 50 feet. The Board remains concerned about the buffer, however, and has suggested that the Applicant contact the owner of the REP and explore whether the REP owner is be willing to give up or reduce some of the parking lot to increase the width of the buffer. In its letter of May 27, 2015, the Applicant stated that it contacted the owner of the REP concerning this issue and is awaiting a response. -10- F. Emergency Services The Applicant was provided with a Memorandum prepared by the Rye Brook Emergency Services Task Force (the “ESTF”) concerning the Project. Although the Applicant has since addressed several of the comments set forth in the ESTF’s memo, the Applicant deferred several items to the formal site plan review stage (Phase II). These items include: 1. Updating the site plan to reflect minimum 26 foot wide streets for 20 feet in length at each fire hydrant throughout the Project site; 2. Review of the road naming and numbering scheme with the ESTF; 3. Preparation of an emergency vehicle routing and turning radius plan; and 4. Line of sight calculations for the traffic signal at the intersection of International Drive and King Street. These items should be addressed at the appropriate time if this application moves forward under the current proposal. G. Zoning Text Amendment The proposed amendments to the PUD regulations would allow the Board of Trustees to waive dimensional requirements under the Village Zoning Ordinance to allow greater development within PUD developments. The proposed amendment mentions specifically the Board of Trustees’ ability to waive the 9,000 square foot gross floor area limit prescribed for housing units in a PUD development if the applicant proposed affordable housing units equal to 10 percent of the market rate units proposed. The -11- amendment would also allow the Board of Trustees to reduce the mandatory buffer, as determined under Section 250-7(E)(2)(e) of the Village Code. The proposed amendment to Section 750-7.E.(3) reads: Authority. The Village Board shall be the municipal authority designated to grant approval for rezoning to a PUD District, as well as the PUD concept plan, after recommendation of the Planning Board. The Village Board shall retain the jurisdiction to waive dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for flexibility of design in the site plan, including but not limited to: (a) The standards and requirements set forth in Section 250-7.E.(2)(d)[1] may be waived to permit additional floor area to be developed in such PUD development, beyond the 9,000 square foot limit, if the development provides Affordable Housing equivalent to ten (10) percent in number of the market-rate dwelling units in such development, provided that such Affordable Housing is restricted for a fifty (50) year term consistent with the Westchester County settlement and is marketed in accordance with the terms of such settlement. (b) The buffer areas set forth in Section 250-7.E.(2)(e) may be reduced where the PUD development abuts commercial office improvements. The Planning Board feels this text should be modified to insert the phrase “in whole or in part” following the word “waive” where it appears in Sections 250-7.E.(3) and 250-7.E.(3)(a). The effect of this additional text is to clarify that, in modifying the PUD bulk zoning requirements, the Board of Trustees retains authority to waive the bulk requirements or reduce them. Also, the legal cite to the County’s affordable housing settlement should be inserted into the language in Section 250-7.E.(3)(b) to provide -12- specific reference to that matter. The Applicant heard these suggested changes and consented to them at the Planning Board meeting on June 11, 2015. In addition, as per the Planning Consultant’s request, the Applicant should provide gross floor area calculations for all unit models showing what the gross floor area would be (a) if the walk-out basements and attached garages are factored into the gross floor area; and (b) if the walk-out basements are excluded from the gross floor area calculations. This information should be provided during the formal site plan stage (Phase II). H. COVENANTS, EASEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE BONDS Consistent with Section 250-7(E)(4)(b)(2) of the Village Code, the Applicant should provide the Board of Trustees with general information concerning any restrictive covenants, easements, conditions and/or performance bonds it expects will be needed as part of Phase II of the Application, with the understanding that preparation of actual transaction documents will not take place until the latter portion of Phase II of the application. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board hereby recommends to the Board of Trustees that the Application for a PUD Concept Plan, re-zoning and zoning text amendment be GRANTED, provided (i) the zoning text amendment should be revised as discussed herein, (ii) the Applicant should provide the information noted in Section H, -13- above; and (iii) the Applicant should address the following outstanding issues/comments during the formal site plan (Phase II) of the application: 1. Develop a satisfactory method for charging the owners of the affordable housing units for maintenance of common improvements and use of the on-site amenities without overburdening them. 2. Demonstrate the infeasibility of turnabouts in the locations of the two dead ends depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan. 3. Provide an explanation concerning the scope of the Maser Traffic Impact Study and demonstrate to the Board of Trustees that further analysis of roads and intersections beyond those covered in the existing study is not necessary. 4. Explore options for increasing or augmenting the proposed buffer between the affordable housing units and the REP parking lot. 5. Provide the gross floor area information requested by the Village Planning Consultant. 6. Address outstanding ESTF comments. In addition, the Board of Trustees should consider requiring that the Applicant disperse the affordable housing units among the market rate units in accordance with Section 250- 26.1.F.(4)(b) of the Village Code. Dated: Rye Brook, New York June 11, 2015 -14- On motion by Ms. Schoen, seconded by Mr. Goodman, Mr. Michael Nowak, Superintendent of Public Works, called the roll: APPROVED AT THE JUNE 11, 2015 MEETING OF THE RYE BROOK PLANNING BOARD BY A VOTE OF 7- to -0 ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Ayes: ACCURSO, GOODMAN, GRZAN, MORLINO, SCHOEN, TARTAGLIA, ZUCKERMAN Nays: Abstain: Excused: