January 12, 2018 Re: Comments to the Revised Draft DEIS Scoping Outline for the 900 King

January 12, 2018
Re: Comments to the revised Draft DEIS Scoping Outline for the 900 King Street Redevelopment dated December 21, 2017
Dear Honorable Mayor Rosenberg and Honorable Members of the Board of Trustees,

The DEIS only specifies that alternatives that are less than the proposed 269 units will be explored. This must include alternatives that meet current zoning requirements (around 104 units), and also several proposals that exceed the current requirements up to the current proposed 269 units. It would be helpful to see what 125, 150, 175 and 200 unit facilities would look like, and not through the process of simply removing a floor or 2 from the large, oddly shaped, proposed independent living building. They should show alternative plans that can utilize the site in a manner that uses less of the land and decreases the visibility of the buildings.

The Osborn in Rye has 392 total units on 56 acres, which equates to 7 units/acre. If the 900 project was to be built at this density, there could be 120 units built. The proposed new project at SUNY Purchase has a maximum number of units to be built of 385 on 40 acres. The SUNY Purchase project may never reach that density level, but that number equates to be 9.625 units/acre. If 900 King were built at that density, it would result in 165 units. The Atria on King Street has a gross square floor area of 190,291 with 168 units. If the new 900 King development used the same density as the Atria, they would only need 305,000gsf not the 445,000gsf they is being proposed. These numbers are over 100 units and around 150,000gsf lower than the 269 proposed units with a 445,000gsf, proving that the developer is trying to build at a density that is not necessary to be economically feasible. They are trying to increase the value of the land through changing zoning at the detriment of the rest of Rye Brook, especially the residents who use King Street and Arbor Drive.

Chief Austin wrote to AKRF on September 15th, 2017 that the 900 development and other projects in Rye Brook will result in the increase in the number of police posts to 3 and the number of officers on duty to 5. This would also result in the need for, “more equipment and vehicles for the additional personnel.” However, the economic impact provided thus far does not include the cost of all the personnel and equipment needs. In addition, EMS services will also be impacted. The Osborn in Rye had over 500 ambulances dispatched in 2017 and the Atria had around 300 ambulance visits. Considering the proposed 900 King project will have over 100 more units than the Atria, this would add around 500 dispatches every year to the village, which only had 1257 dispatches last year. This is around a 40% increase in the total number, which could cause increased response times. One additional minute could mean the difference between life and death and I am concerned for the safety of the resident of Rye Brook.

AKRF reached out to the Bristol in Armonk, as part of their search for the effect on emergency services. Since the developer feels this is an equivalent site, then they should compare the units available at that facility compared to the proposed development. The Bristol offers studio apartments, which the 900 King developer stated, at a village Board meeting, “are not being proposed because they are not in high demand”. The Bristol studio apartments are 324, 426, and 464 sq. ft. The Bristol’s one-bedroom units are 575 sq. ft. and their two bedroom units are 903 sq. ft. In addition, the Atria in Rye Brook, also listed as a comparable development by the developer, has much smaller rooms than what is being proposed. There are 6 different one-bedroom models, which are 624, 672, 672, 720, 740, and 820 square feet. The 3 different two-bedroom unit models are 945, 1058, and 1086 square feet. The proposed development at 900 King Street does not have any units smaller than 900 square feet and has units as large as 1800 square feet. This huge increase in size accounts for why the proposed development is occupying such a large footprint on the site. They should have to explain why their room sizes are so large, and why they offer 3-bedroom units but not studios, especially since what they consider a comparable site is vastly smaller and do not offer 3-bedroom units. Remember, the Arbors units range in size from 1200 square feet to around 1900 square feet. Why would 78-84 year olds need such large apartments? In addition, why would 78-84 year olds want to live in a 2-story townhome at all? Only younger residents would want to occupy such large apartments and townhomes with 2-stories. However, and good financial planner would never advocate a homeowner sell their home in their late 50s or 60s and rent for 20+ years. They would run out of money. Therefore, my concern is that they are building in a manner that is using too much of the land and setting up the property to be rezoned in the future to remove the age restriction if the property is not successful as an 55+ or 62+ community. This would have unacceptable consequences to traffic and the schools and can never be allowed.

Does the traffic study take into account the new developments currently under construction in the area and those that are being planned, including the SUNY Purchase college senior living project, the future development of the Blind Brook country club and the full redevelopment of the Doral Arrowwood site if the hotel and all open space were used to build additional housing? These all will greatly impact King Street, especially at the intersection with Anderson Hill Road.

The proposed zoning amendments, I believe, have an inconsistency. They refer to the 10% public open space requirement as being for the entire P.U.D (they use Harkness Park to meet this requirement). However, they are asking that the minimum P.U.D lot size be reduced from 30 acres to 15 acres to accommodate the new development. If they are altering the P.U.D to allow themselves to be a new P.U.D zone, they should not have the benefit of using the public spaces already set aside as part of the existing P.U.D they are no longer going to be a part of to allow for their project to move forward. In addition, using the area they are referring to as the “backyard” as open access green space is not only dangerous for their elderly residents, it literally is in the backyard of the residents of Ivy Hill Lane and Crescent. Allowing them to use that buffer area for anything other than a buffer is completely unacceptable.

Arbor Drive will not be able to deal with the increase in traffic due to this facility. Even when it was a commercial space, the traffic was using Arbor drive at different times than the residents of the Arbors, which was the original intention of the P.U.D. In addition, they never have used the roads on the weekends. The increase in traffic, both on Arbor drive and King street will decrease the property values of everyone’s homes in the area and alternatives must be found to alleviate normal traffic before another development is constructed. Several incidents over the last month have resulted in traffic on King Street, that prevented the residents of the Arbors and surrounding neighborhoods for getting to their homes for 15-30 minutes and one accident closed King Street near the school for over an hour. There is no margin for error when if comes to traffic in this area already and therefore this community has no business being in this location, if built anything near the presently proposed size. If anything is to be built here, the traffic lights must be changed to better help the flow of traffic and Arbor drive should be widened to allow the 900 King residents to enter and leave the complex without affecting the cars traveling along Arbor drive. The increase in the number of senior drivers on Arbor drive and in close proximity to the school is also concerning for general safety and public transportation should be looked at.

Construction must not be allowed to occur at times school is in session or when Arbor’s residents are home. This leaves virtually no time in the day to conduct such an extensive construction project. The better alternative is to either rehab the current office building to meet the needs of today’s businesses or alter the structure to senior residential use. I believe that they have not fully subdivided the space and they are charging more than the surrounding office spaces, which could be the reason they are not competitive. These are not the original owners of the property and knew what they were purchasing. Adding value to the property through zoning changes hurts the rest of the village if these changes are not thought out properly. The property is underutilized due to poor planning in the 1970s when the Town of Rye attempted to maximize profits by building a structure that is around twice as large as what should have permitted. The Village Board should not repeat that mistake. In addition, finding another way for construction vehicles to enter the site, aside from Arbor drive, would keep these vehicles further from the school and help to alleviate future traffic issues on Arbor drive.

Finally, the loss of vegetation is unacceptable. The removal of 209 mature trees from a site that currently is occupied by a building and parking lot seems completely unnecessary and unsafe. Mature trees prevent erosion and block the view of the complex. That being said, the 900 building is clearly visible from the Hutch, N. Ridge Street, Village hall, and Arbor drive, especially with the leaves down. The proposed location is closer to the gap in the trees, which will make the building more visible from the Hutch and N. Ridge Street. Simply replacing these trees with smaller trees is not sufficient and will not lead to decreasing the views from these roads for decades.

Thank you for your time,

Daniel & Rachel Barnett

227 Treetop Crescent

Rye Brook, NY 10573