Documents

local law 164 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: 2011 Planning Board harmonmemoFINALVERSIONapproved CRO 11-004 Zoning Text Map Amendments Gateway Draftlaw-october2011 EAF-parts1-2 Memo to Village Board re. Zoning Amendments WAC-preliminaryconsistency

Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Proposed Zoning Amendments Environmental Assessment Form Report Prepared on Behalf of: Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. July 15, 2010 Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Lead Agency: Municipal Building 1 Van Wyck Street Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Contact: Janine King, Assistant Village Manager Village Attorney: James Staudt, Esq. McCullough, Goldberger & Staudt, LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 340 White Plains, New York 10605 Prepared by: Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. 445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 404 White Plains, NY 10601 Contact: Bonnie Von Ohlsen, RLA Traffic Engineering: The RBA Group 27 Union Square West 4th Floor New York, NY 10003-3366 Contact: Jennifer Cato, PE, PTOE Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  I. II. EAF Part 3 – Evaluation of the Importance of Impacts a. Land Use and Zoning i. Existing Conditions ii. Impact Analysis and Assumptions (for all scenarios) iii. Potential Impacts – Land Use and Zoning b. Aesthetic and Historic Resources c. Growth and Character of Community i. Schools ii. Taxes iii. Community Services d. Traffic and Parking III. Residential Market Factors IV. Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Parts 1 & 2 and Supplemental Information V. Croton-on-Hudson Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) Appendices APPENDIX A: Draft Local Law Introductory No. 3-2010 and List of Parcels APPENDIX B: Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations, Harmon Business Development Committee (August 26, 2008) APPENDIX C: Traffic and Parking Study (The RBA Group, September 2009) Harmon Zoning Amendments - Parking Study Amendment (The RBA Group, October 2009) Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  List of Exhibits Site Location Aerial Photograph Zoning Existing Land Use Parcel Identification with Photographs Vacant and Underutilized Parcels Scenario #1- Likely Anticipated Level of Development Scenario #2 - Theoretical Maximum (100% build out – all individual lots) Scenario #3 - Theoretical Maximum (100% build out with some combined parcels) Photograph Key Photographs of Views from H/SRGD Toward Hudson River Van Cortlandt Manor Location Photographs of 73 Benedict Boulevard List of Tables Parcels Proposed to be Added to Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Parcels Already Within the Harmon Gateway Overlay District 3 Scenario #1- Likely Anticipated Level of Development 4 Scenario #2 - All Mixed Use-All Individual Parcels 5 Scenario #3- Theoretical Maximum (100% build-out with some combined parcels) 6 Summary Comparison of Scenarios #1, 2, 3 Zoning Comparison Estimated Number of School Children (Scenario #1) Estimated Number of School Children (Scenarios #2-3) Tax Estimates (Village and School Taxes) Estimated Population: Scenario #1 (Likely Level of Development) Estimated Population: Scenarios #2-3 (Theoretical 100% build out) Trip Generation Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  I. a. Proposed Action The Village of Croton-on-Hudson is proposing to adopt Local Law Introductory No. 3-2010 which would repeal Local Law No. 4-2009 and enact zoning code provisions substantially similar to those which were included in local law No. 4-2009. This process is being undertaken to avoid the expense of litigating alleged procedural errors in the enactment of local law No. 4-2009. As compared to the zoning code provisions in place prior to the enactment of Local Law No. 4-2009, this Action would make certain revisions to the zoning code to expand the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District, and to modify the previously existing gateway and related regulations in this area to encourage commercial development by facilitating market rate mixed use of properties. This report evaluates the impacts of the zoning changes in accordance with the provisions of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This action, which is being contemplated by the Village Board of Trustees, is referred to as the “Proposed Action” in this environmental report. The draft local law introductory No. 3-2010, outlining the specific proposed amendments, is included in Appendix A. A summary of the proposed revisions compared to the previously existing (pre-Local Law No. 4-2009) Harmon/South Riverside (H/SR) Gateway Overlay district regulations is listed below. • For new mixed use development in the Harmon/South Riverside gateway district: • Increase FAR (floor area ratio) in mixed use buildings from 0.4 FAR to 0.8 FAR; • Permit mixed use without a special permit in the overlay district; • In mixed use buildings, residential would be permitted on the third floor (within the roofline and the existing 35–foot height limit); • Front setback from street shall be 15-20 feet; • In mixed use buildings, at least 50% ground floor must be commercial and face street front, at least 60% of front facade facing street must be glass; second floor either residential or non-residential permitted, 3rd floor residential only; • Parking requirements for mixed use: 1 space per residential unit plus 1 additional space for each bedroom in excess of 1; (no change to parking requirements for non- residential space); • Corner lots shall be deemed to have two fronts; • Planning Board may waive side yard setback requirements providing there is otherwise adequate access to parking areas; • Pre-existing buildings proposed for mixed use may not utilize 0.8 FAR or add third story occupancy unless otherwise area compliant and have 10-20 feet front yard; • New retail uses in C-2 zone in gateway district shall not require special permit as part of mixed use; • Mixed use buildings shall be subject to additional design guidelines as adopted by Village Board. • Front setback requirements will encourage parking in the rear of buildings. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  • Expand the Overlay Area: Expand the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District (H/SRGD) to include commercial areas along both sides of South Riverside, extended up to approximately 200 feet north of Oneida Avenue. Total area of original Harmon gateway and expansion area (including roads) is approximately 11.7 acres. b. History and Purpose of Proposed Action The rezoning law has evolved from recommendations by the Harmon Business Development Committee (HBDC), a citizen committee appointed by the Village Board with the goal of coming up with recommendations to address the increasing vacancies in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway (H/SRG), enhance streetscape of Harmon, improve pedestrian circulation, and gain flexibility for property owners on South Riverside Avenue. All of the Committee’s recommendations are proposed to encourage redevelopment and reduce vacancies that exist in the Harmon commercial area. Rationale and background behind these recommendations that lead to the Proposed Action are described in “Harmon Zone Change Recommendations” (8/26/08) put together by the HBDC (attached as Appendix B). This rationale includes the examination of what factors might encourage or discourage a property owner from investing in a commercial lot in the Harmon area. The Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the Proposed Action, Parts 1 and 2, are included in Section IV of this report. EAF Parts 1 and 2 are the first step in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, and are designed to assist the Lead Agency (in this case, the Croton Village Board of Trustees) in determining whether the Proposed Action may have a significant effect on the environment. The EAF Part 3 includes more detail regarding potential areas of impact identified in EAF Part 2, as described in the following narrative. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART 3: EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS This EAF Part 3 has been prepared to provide additional and updated information regarding potentially large impacts or issues of community controversy. For each of the following topics, the impact is described, and a discussion is provided. With this information, the Lead Agency (Village Board of Trustees) will decide whether the Proposed Action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. With the proposed Harmon/South Riverside Gateway (H/SR) Overlay zoning amendments, potential impacts to be studied within this EAF Part 3 narrative report include: land use and zoning; aesthetic and historic resources; traffic; parking; and community resources including schools, taxes and community services. In this report, the existing conditions and potential impacts to these areas will be discussed. Since this is a proposed zoning amendment, as opposed to a specific construction project proposal, Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  some assumptions have to be made to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed zoning, if it were in place. The Village of Croton-on-Hudson has been considering possible ways to encourage revitalization and lessen commercial vacancies in the Harmon area for quite some time, starting in 2007. The Harmon Business Development Committee (HBDC) was formed by the Village Board to study and provide recommendations on this issue. However, the Gateway Overlay Zoning has been in place on the southern portion of the area for a longer time (since 2004). As previously noted, the Proposed Action calls for an expansion of the overlay district. The concept of the Gateway Overlay District has existed in Croton since its description in the EAF prepared for the Comprehensive Plan and map in 2002. In 2003, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) was prepared for the Gateway zoning (of which one location is the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area). A Final GEIS (FGEIS) was compiled in 2004, followed by Gateway SEQR Findings in March 2004. These documents investigated the existing conditions and potential impacts of adoption of a gateway overlay district law “to establish standards that will upgrade the image and function of gateway areas, strengthen the overall visual identity of the village, and improve linkages to adjacent residential neighborhoods”1 in three separate gateway areas of Croton, one of which was Harmon/South Riverside. The Village Board of Trustees found that after their consideration of the facts and conclusions studied in the GEIS (including land use, zoning, air quality, noise, vegetation and wildlife, community facilities and services, transportation, historic and visual resources, socioeconomics and neighborhood character), that the gateway law was consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, and the initial gateway law was adopted. The currently proposed zoning amendments and expansion of the district boundary stem from recommendations of the HBDC that were presented in July 2008, supported by professional studies on property utilization (Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., July 2008) and commercial market (Danth, 2008). The proposed zoning amendments will be reviewed by the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Planning Board, and the Village of Croton-on-Hudson Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC). The WAC will advise whether it believes the action is consistent with the LWRP policies. In addition, the proposed zoning amendments will be reviewed by Westchester County Planning, and they will comment on the proposed zoning amendments regarding consistency with Westchester 2025, the County’s planning guidance document. 1 Adoption of Gateway Overlay District Legislation, Findings Statement (dated 3/15/04)  Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  a. Land Use and Zoning i. Existing Conditions The primary land uses in the gateway area include retail, auto-related business, restaurants, office and personal service establishments. Several mixed use buildings (mix of commercial and apartments) are currently in use in the Harmon/South Riverside area. The H/SRGD and expansion area also have vacant and underutilized parcels, as indicated on Exhibit 6. In this case, vacant parcels are defined as those upon which there is no active land use. There are vacant parcels with buildings (that are not leased or being used) and vacant parcels without buildings. There are also lots which have buildings that are partially vacant, these are indicated as underutilized/partially vacant. Adjacent land uses to the east (outside the H/SRGD and proposed expansion area), along Young Avenue, are primarily single family residential, along with Good Shepherd church. Adjacent land uses to the west along Clinton Street and Wayne Street are primarily single family residential, but also include the Harmon fire house, EMS and public parking areas. Beyond this area to the west is Route 9, the MTA rail yards and railroad tracks and then the Hudson River. These surrounding land uses are indicated on Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph and Exhibit 4, Existing Land Use. Original zoning in the study area was C-2 (General Commercial), with the southern portion of the study area also covered by the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District (H/SRGD). This is described on Exhibits 1 and 3 (Location Map and Zoning). C-2 district regulations currently allow a maximum building floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.5 within a maximum of two stories. The commercial “Gateways” indicated in the Village of Croton-On-Hudson Code are the major commercial entry points to the Village from surrounding roads. The Harmon/South Riverside gateway is the entry point to the Village from Route 9, the train station and Croton Point Avenue. (See Exhibit 2, Aerial Photograph). Within the original gateway overlay area, gateway regulations limited parcels to a maximum FAR of 0.35 for single use buildings and 0.40 for multiple use buildings (and multiple use buildings require a special permit). The Code states that, with certain exceptions, uses within the gateway area shall correspond to permitted and special permit uses in the underlying zoning district. For this analysis, 39 tax parcels are included; 22 within the proposed expansion area and 17 within the original H/SRGD.2 The original H/SRGD parcels and proposed expansion                                                             2 For consistency with previous studies, this EAF uses the same parcel identification as the maps in the July 2008 Property Utilization Analysis prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc.; which had numbering for the 36 tax parcels included in that Study Area. That was the same Study Area used in the Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations (August 2008) presentation to the Village Board by the Harmon Business Development Committee (HBDC). Existing parcels in the H/SRGD on Croton Point Avenue were not included in that HBDC Study Area (since they were already in the Gateway District and are not on South Riverside Avenue) and are numbered 37, 38 and 39 for purposes of this report.   Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  area are indicated on Exhibit 5, Parcel Identification with Photographs. List of the affected parcels, their tax lot number and existing land uses are included in Tables 1 and 2 below. All of the parcels in the gateway expansion area have frontage on South Riverside Avenue except for a tax parcel on Clinton Street that is used for parking for a South Riverside Avenue Japanese restaurant (parcel 16), and an isolated parcel behind the Luk Oil station that has no street frontage (parcel 17). Final list of parcels to be included in the Harmon Gateway is attached to the draft Local Law Introductory which is included in Appendix A. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Table 1 Parcels Proposed to be Added To Original Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District (Tax Map Section 79.13) Parcel ID Block/lot Lot Size (sf) Current use 1/9 13,333 Professional Office (Croton Professional Building – dentist, law, insurance) 1/5 These parcels are included as part of the professional office at the north end of South Riverside Avenue 1/6 1/7 1/60 14,473 Restaurant (Umami) 1/61 7,160 Mixed Use (restaurant and 1 apartment)- renovations to Anton’s underway (site plan approved for expansion and improvements) 1/62 11,276 1/63 12,692 Mixed use (Laundromat, Mexigo, second floor apartments) 1/64 12,614 Mixed use (Coco Nails, second floor apartments) 1/65 8,287 Taxi stand (J&S taxi/airport)/residential apartments 1/66 16,240 Vacant parcels (with buildings - former Croton Dodge)-application for special permit for vintage auto repair/sales is pending with Village (as of June 2010) 1/68 7,765 1/69 8,270 Nail salon (Perfect 10 Nails) – 73 Benedict Boulevard 1/70 10,099 Convenience Store 1/71 5,981 Mixed Use (with partially vacant building -first floor: vacant commercial/thrift shop, upper floor apartments) 1/72 8,517 Mixed use (first floor: insurance, florist, hair; upper floor apartments) 1/73 2,670 Deli (LaMonica’s Salumeria) 1/74 10,318 Restaurant (Japanese steakhouse restaurant) 1/75 5,262 Parking (for Japanese restaurant) 1/85 4,055 Gas station (LukOil) 1/86 22,150 1/87 11,342 Vacant with building (office/parking -formerly Westchester Coach & Limo Ltd) 1/88 5,167 Auto Body shop (Atro Collision Center) 1/89 5,734 1/90 2,100 Total to be added to original H/SRGD1 207,605 sf 1Source: Appendix 2, List of Affected Parcels, and Harmon Business Development Committee, Zoning Change Recommendations (July 2008); with updates in the field from Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. (2010) Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Table 2 Parcels already within the Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District (Tax Map Section 79.13) Parcel ID1 Block/lot Lot Size (sf) Current use 2/21 1,920 Gas station (Gulf) 2/22 12,284 2/22.1 14,556 2/23 13,591 Vacant parcels (no buildings-former auto storage) 2/24 2,925 2/25 18,286 Auto related-underutilized parcel (with buildings - Oil City gas station; currently no gas distribution operations, maybe some auto repair operations continuing) 2/26 12,436 Vacant parcel (with buildings- formerly Nappy’s motor vehicle repair) 2/27 7,424 Partially vacant parcel (two buildings-vacant professional office; apartment over garage currently occupied) 2/28 6,596 Vacant parcel (parking lot for mixed use on 2/27) 2/29 6,463 Restaurant (Kiko’s-opened spring 2010) 2/30 8,550 Hair salon (Sonny Abbott’s) 2/31 6,410 Veterinarian office/apartment 2/32 6,999 2/33 4,064 Professional office (Podiatrist) Subtotal1 128,190 sf Croton Point Avenue frontage parcels: 2/18; 2/19; 2/20 have merged into one lot 16,883 Three family residential; has Certificate of Occupancy for 3 apartments; vehicular access from Wayne Street, not Croton Point Avenue 2/6 10,600 Deli (Good to Go Deli) 2/5 12,300 Office/commercial (Franzoso Contracting) Total in Original H/SRGD 167,973 sf 1Source: Appendix 2, List of Affected Parcels, and Harmon Business Development Committee, Zoning Change Recommendations (July 2008); with updates from Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. (2009). The concept of the Gateway Overlay districts was described in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan Update (January 2003). The Gateway Overlay district law was a direct outcome of that Comprehensive Plan update, and has been in the village code since 2004, after study of the proposed amendments by the village starting in 2003. As previously noted, that study included a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS, October 2003), Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS, January 2004) and SEQR Findings (March 2004) supporting the Gateway Overlay District legislation. (Full list of environmental review documents relating to the Gateway Overlay is located on the Village website: www.crotononhudson-ny.gov). Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  The Village has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) which was adopted in 1992 and incorporates the entire village within its boundaries. The Village’s Coastal Assessment Form (CAF) is provided in Section V and will be reviewed by the Croton-on-Hudson Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC) for consistency with LWRP policies. The Harmon gateway area of the village is identified as part of the principal commercial areas, as part of the Center Village Section of the LWRP (LWRP, pages II- 12, 13). The Comprehensive Plan (January 2003) is a planning document intended to guide “the immediate and long range protection, enhancement, growth and development of the Village”3. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan (“The Plan”), the four commercial centers in the Village (of which Harmon is one) play a dual role, as sources of retail and services for residents as well as defining the image of the Village. The Harmon/South Riverside area is noted in The Plan as having a concentration of auto-related uses, and numerous personal service establishments. It is accessible to pedestrian from neighborhoods and the railroad station, but it is noted that sidewalks need improvement. The Plan also states that “this area lacks a strong architectural identity. Building form, façade design and site landscaping vary from one property to another. Utility poles and overhead wires on the east side of South Riverside dominate the landscape. In addition, many of the sidewalks are lined by unscreened surface parking lots”4. Regarding residential development in the village, detached, single family owner-occupied homes are the dominant housing type. This includes the established residential neighborhood of Harmon which is adjacent to the commercial area of the H/SRGD. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the demand for appropriately sized, affordable housing for aging Village residents, young couples without children, and Village personnel is growing. The Comprehensive Plan states that the Village should examine ways to encourage lower cost, smaller sized, single or multi-family dwellings in order to maintain the demographic diversity of the Village.5 Village-wide recommendations from The Plan that apply to the H/SRGD include: • Maintain economic diversity • Preserve the historic character of Croton on Hudson • Improve the visual quality of Croton on Hudson • Improve commercial areas • Enhance the pedestrian connections within the Village • Improve traffic flow and parking Gateway Districts are specifically described as a planning strategy to mark a sense of arrival and connection to the community, and establish an image for the community. The Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District (H/SRGD) was specifically identified due to its strategic location on Route 9A and its accessibility to the railroad station.                                                             3 Comprehensive Plan: Village of Croton On Hudson, (January 2003) page 2. 4 Comprehensive Plan: Village of Croton On Hudson, (January 2003) page 67.  5 Comprehensive Plan: Village of Croton On Hudson, (January 2003) page 46.  Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Specific Plan recommendations for the H/SRGD include (an illustrative plan describing the H/SRGD improvements is provided in the Comprehensive Plan as Figure 4.5): • Streetscape improvements (including sidewalks, landscaping, street trees, reducing curb cuts, reducing overhead utility lines) • Pedestrian and bicycle link improvements • Reinforcing gateway identity (signage, streetscape features) In 2009, the Village prepared a Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan. This plan has an overall goal of maintaining and improved the quality of life and safety of those who walk and ride bicycles in the village. The original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area, specifically the intersections of Croton Point Avenue and South Riverside, is an important connector leading to the train station for commuters and is identified as such in the report. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. H U D S O N R I V E R Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Original Harmon/ South Riverside Gateway District 1000’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Village of Croton-on-Hudson GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 1 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants SITE LOCATION YOUNG AVE BENEDICT BLVD HASTINGS AVE PENFIELD AVE CLEVELAND DR DEVON ST CROTON POINT AVE ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST ARLINGTON AVE SOU TH R IVERS IDE A VENUE ROUTE 9 Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District 100’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Village of Croton-on-Hudson GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 2 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH US-9 YOUNG AVE HAST BENEDICT BLVD ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE S RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST LI C-2 RA-5 C-2 C-2 RB YOUNG AVE 100’ General Commercial Light Industrial One-Family Residence Two-Family Residence C-2 LI RA-5 RB Zoning District Boundary H/SRGD (Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District) Expansion of H/SRGD SOURCE: Village of Croton-on-Hudson GIS DATE: July 2010 HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 3 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants ZONING US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD PENFIELD AVE CLEVELAND DR DEVON ST ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE ARLINGTON AVE SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST SO UTH RI VERS IDE AVEN UE Auto-Oriented Use Commercial Community Services Light Industrial Mixed Use Van Cortlandt Manor Office Restaurant or Deli Single-Family Residential Vacant H/SRGD (Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Overlay) Multi-Family Residential Expansion of H/SRGD 100’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Village of Croton-on-Hudson GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 4 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants EXISTING LAND USE YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD PENFIELD AVE CLEVELAND DR DEVON ST ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE ARLINGTON AVE S RIVERSIDE AVE US-9 BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST 30-31 3-4 8-9 34-35 30-31 26-27 20-21-22 11-12 15-16 17-18 23-24-25 Parcel Identification Number Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District 100’ DATE: July 2010 HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 5 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants PARCEL IDENTIFICATION WITH PHOTOGRAPHS US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE S RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST Vacant Lot - No Buildings Underutilized Lot (Partially Vacant Buildings) Vacant Lot with Buildings Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Croton-on-Hudson, New York GIS 100’ HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 6 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants VACANT AND UNDERUTILIZED PARCELS Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  ii. Impact Analysis and Assumptions (for all Scenarios evaluated in EAF Part 3): Since the Proposed Action being analyzed is a zoning amendment, and not an actual construction project, there are many possibilities for the level of future development. In order to evaluate potential impacts, therefore, certain assumptions of level of redevelopment had to be made. For the purpose of this report, three potential development scenarios were contemplated. Calculations for redevelopment potential for redevelopment parcels were taken from Tables 1 and 2 of the July 2008 “Property Utilization Study” prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. The following assumptions are from that July 2008 study, and apply to all of the redevelopment scenarios described here, as analyzed with the parameters of the draft law: • Parcels would be redeveloped with new mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development under the proposed gateway overlay zoning amendments (up to 0.8 FAR, including three stories within 35-foot maximum building height). • For all redeveloped mixed use parcels, it was assumed that 50 percent of the ground floor would be dedicated to non-residential uses; therefore 50 percent of the area of the footprint equals the area for non-residential uses; and the footprint area was multiplied by two and a half (2.5) in order to achieve the residential space area. (Note: This is the assumption that was made for this analysis in order to be conservative with respect to residential impacts, even though in the proposed zoning amendments, the second floor could have either residential or non-residential uses. Also, the first floor could be 100% commercial) • It was assumed that the gross average size of the residential units would be 1,000 square feet each. This area gives room to deduct for common spaces (e.g., hallways, stairwells), as well as account for a potential mix of one and two bedroom units. • For residential uses, it was assumed that 1 parking space is required for each unit, plus one additional space for each bedroom in excess of 1. • For non-residential uses, the Village zoning code requires 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of retail/commercial space or 1 parking space for each 300 square feet of office/daycare space in the C-2 zone. Since the potential mixed use buildings could have either of these uses in the future, the calculations presented average these two parking requirements at 1 parking space for each 275 feet of commercial space. (The required number of parking spaces is rounded up to the nearest whole parking space). Scenario #1: Likely Anticipated Level of Development (46 residential units/10,323 sf commercial) This scenario assumes that a certain level of redevelopment would occur in the near term6, including the significantly underutilized or vacant parcels of land in the Harmon Gateway and proposed expansion area at the time of this analysis (June 2010). As with all of the scenarios, this assumes new development proposals that would be brought                                                             6 “near term” defined in this context is approximately 1-5 years. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  before the Village Planning Board by private parties/land owners (no publicly-owned properties are involved). This scenario assumes that 11 of the parcels (all vacant or underutilized) will be redeveloped as mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development under the proposed amendments to the gateway overlay zoning. In some cases, it assumes combination of parcels that are directly adjacent to each other. The one exception to this assumption of complete redevelopment is parcel 12, which is an existing, partly vacant building and is assumed not to be re-constructed, but for the existing vacancies to be filled within that structure. This scenario includes redevelopment of the following underutilized lots on the east side of South Riverside Avenue: • Former Croton Dodge and adjacent parking (combined parcels 8, 9) • Former Nappy Auto (parcel 29) • Vacant underutilized office buildings/garage/apartment (parcels 30-31) On the west side of South Riverside Avenue: • Now inactive Oil City gas station (parcel 28) • Vacant lots (combined parcels 27, 26) - former auto storage. • Underutilized/partially vacant building (parcel 12) north of convenience store (no new construction - keep existing structure, fill vacancies) • Now vacant commercial lot, formerly Westchester Coach (parcel 19) The parcels described above are identified on Exhibit 7, Scenario #1, and a summary of the build-out under this scenario (using proposed law and described assumptions) is included in Table 3 below: Table 3 Scenario #1- Likely Anticipated Level of Development Parcel # Lot Area (sf) Non- Residential space (sf)1 Non- Residential parking1 Residential Units1 Residential Parking Total parking required 8-9 (former Croton Dodge) 24,005 2,304 29 (former Nappy) 12,436 1,399 30-31 (vacant office/garage/apt) 14,020 1,785 26-27 (auto storage lots) 16,516 1,797 28 (vacant Oil City) 18,286 1,512 123 (Ex. bldg) 5,981 ±840 19 (former Westch. Coach) 11,342 Totals 102,586 10,323 sf 1 Taken from Table 2 in property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. in July 2008, except for data for parcel 12. Assumes 50% one-bedroom and 50% two-bedroom units for parking calculations. 2 As per proposed zoning amendments; 1 parking space for each unit, 1 additional parking space for each additional bedroom Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  3For parcel 12, assumes proposed re-use of existing structure (±1,680 sf footprint), meeting of requirements of proposed amendments, with exception of parking (waiver of parking requirements for this lot is permitted in existing Code) Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE S RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST Combined Development Parcels Area to Be Redeveloped Remaining Parcels - No Change in Use Parcel Identification Number Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Croton-on-Hudson, New York GIS 100’ HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 7 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants SCENARIO #1: LIKELY LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Scenario #2: Theoretical Maximum (100% build-out: all individual lots) (145 residential units/39,604 sf commercial) This scenario assumes that every parcel in the entire study area would be redeveloped with new mixed use structures on each individual parcel. As a theoretical maximum, this scenario assumes that all of the privately-owned vacant, underutilized and occupied parcels (parcels in both original gateway and proposed expansion area) would be redeveloped with mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development and be required to meet the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed gateway overlay zoning amendments. It assumes the level of redevelopment as described in Table 4 (using only individual parcel development) of the property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. dated July 2, 2008 and parameters of the proposed draft law. Potential development on parcels 37, 38, 39 (Croton Point Avenue parcels already in the H/SRGD) was calculated separately using the same methodology. This describes 100% build-out, where new mixed use development would occur not just on the unused or vacant parcels of land, but on all of the parcels, regardless of their land use now. As with all of the scenarios, this one assumes new development proposals brought before the Village Planning Board by private parties/land owners, as well as the assumptions described in this section. The chance of Scenario #2 (or #3) occurring, even over a long period of time (5-20 years), is highly unlikely. This is because these scenarios envision redevelopment of the entire gateway area as mixed use; with new construction (including demolition/replacement/upgrade of all existing structures); at the maximum possible level of development. The parcels are identified on Exhibit 8, Scenario #2, and a summary of build-out under this scenario is included in Table 4 below: Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Table 4 Scenario #2-All Mixed Use-All Individual Parcels Parcel Non- residential space (sf)1 Non- Residential parking1 Residential Units1 Residential Parking1,2 Total parking required (1.5/unit)2 4,502 2,826 3,280 totals 39,604 sf 1 Taken from Table 2 in property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. in July 2008, except for parcels 37, 38, 39 which were calculated separately using the same methodology 2 As per zoning amendments; 1 parking space for each unit, 1 additional parking space for each additional bedroom. Rounded up to two-bedroom units if odd number of residential units is provided. 3 Note: Parcel 17 has no street frontage Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE S RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST Area to Be Redeveloped No Combined Development parcels Parcel Identification Number Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District 100’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Croton-on-Hudson, New York GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 8 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants SCENARIO #2: 100% BUILD OUT THEORETICAL MAXIMUM (ALL INDIVIDUAL LOTS) Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Scenario #3: Theoretical Maximum (100% build-out with some combined parcels) (146 residential units/38,723 sf commercial) This scenario assumes that the entire H/SRGD and proposed expansion area would be redeveloped with new mixed use structures, with combination of some adjacent lots to provide larger development parcels. As a theoretical maximum (just as with Scenario #2), this scenario assumes that all of the privately-owned vacant, underutilized and occupied parcels (all parcels listed within existing district and proposed expansion) would be redeveloped with mixed-use buildings using the maximum potential development and meeting the on-site parking requirements as per the proposed gateway overlay zoning amendments. It assumes the level of redevelopment as described in Table 2 of the property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. dated July 2, 2008. Potential development on parcels 37, 38, 39 (Croton Point Avenue parcels already in the H/SRGD) was calculated separately using the same methodology as the July 2008 Study. This describes demolition of existing land uses and 100% build-out with new construction, and further assumes some parcels would be joined and developed together on a site plan. As with all of the scenarios, this scenario assumes new development proposals brought before the Village Planning Board by private parties/land owners, as well as the assumptions described at the end of this section. This scenario is theoretical, and for the same reasons as Scenario #2, is considered highly unlikely to occur. The combined parcels are identified on Exhibit 9, Scenario #3, and a summary of the build-out under this scenario is included in the Table 5 below: Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Table 5 Scenario #3- Theoretical Maximum (100% build-out with some combined parcels) Parcel Non- residential space (sf)1 Non- Residential parking1 Residential Units1 Residential Parking1 Total parking required (1.5/unit)2 3-4 8-9-10 14-15-16 17-18 20-21-22 23-24-25 26-27 30-31 34-35-36 4,502 2,826 3,280 totals 38,723 sf 1 Taken from Table 2 in property utilization study prepared by Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. in July 2008, except for parcels 37, 38, 39 calculated separately using the same methodology 2 Rounded up to two-bedroom units if odd number of residential units is provided Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE S RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST Combined Development Parcels Area to Be Redeveloped Remaining Parcels - No Change in Use Parcel Identification Number Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District 100’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Croton-on-Hudson, New York GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 9 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants SCENARIO #3: 100% BUILD OUT THEORETICAL MAXIMUM (WITH COMBINED LOTS) Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Summary: Summary comparison of the estimated build-out figures for development scenarios #1, 2, 3 is presented below. Table 6 Summary Comparison of Scenarios #1, 2, 3 # Residential units Commercial/ retail (SF) Total parking Scenario #1 (likely scenario-redevelopment of underutilized or vacant parcels) 10,323 sf Scenario #2 (Theoretical Maximum-full build- out: all individual lots) 39,604 sf Scenario #3 (Theoretical Maximum-full build- out: combination of some parcels) 38,723 sf Alternative Scenario Not Analyzed (with assumptions of common ownership and common parking lots) (208 residential units/43,726 sf commercial) This unrealistic scenario was discussed in the Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. study (dated July 2008; Table 1 of that report). It assumes assemblage of private lands into larger parcels. This 2008 report states that this scenario is theoretical and not really achievable, and describes the assumptions that would be required for this level of development to occur. As described in that study, this scenario is not considered in any way a viable alternative or development scenario, based on the characteristics and assumptions made to arrive at these development numbers (it is a theoretical mathematical maximum). For instance, in order for this scenario to occur, the following would have to take place: • All parcels developed to the maximum FAR, with several assumed combined parcels. (Due to configuration of lots, maximum FAR is not achievable on all parcels, since on-site parking is a requirement). • In addition, 23 on-street parking spaces on South Riverside would have to be available to contribute to the parking requirements of the new mixed use buildings. (On-site parking could not be accommodated on many of these parcels when utilizing the maximum FAR). Therefore, this scenario was not analyzed further for impacts. This extreme build-out would require the village to waive many key land use requirements that this zoning amendment seeks to enforce, including: parking requirements, open space requirements, and setbacks. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  iii. Potential Impacts- Land Use and Zoning: The land uses in the proposed expansion of gateway area are primarily commercial, with some residential that currently exists in the form of apartments in commercial (mixed use) buildings. The underlying zoning district would remain the same (C-2, General Commercial). By expanding the gateway district to include the South Riverside business area of Harmon, it expands the gateway regulations to encompass most of the C-2 area. (The only C-2 areas excluded are the lots zoned C-2 on Clinton and Wayne Streets, as shown in Exhibit 3). This extension of the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway overlay district and proposed amendments includes design parameters that are intended to improve the “walkabilty” of the area and encourage commercial activity on the first floor street level. The stated purpose of the Gateway Overlay District is to “establish standards that upgrade the image and function of the gateway areas, strengthen the overall visual identity of the Village and improve pedestrian linkages to adjacent residential neighborhoods”.7 One of the primary intents of the gateway overlay ordinance (approved in 2004) was to encourage development that is appropriate to the small-scale character of the village. This intent is still valid for the proposed amendments to the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District since it encourages maintaining a village scale character of development. Proposed zoning changes are outlined in draft law, which is contained in Appendix A. Proposed amendments to the Gateway Overlay, in comparison to the prior code, are described in Table 7 below. 7 Village of Croton-on-Hudson Code, Article IVA, Section 230-20.1C Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Table 7 Zoning Comparison Prior Code Proposed amendments Within Harmon Gateway Overlay1,3 C-2 without gateway overlay (proposed expansion area) C-2 with gateway overlay (existing gateway area) FAR (floor area ratio) 0.5 FAR 0.35 FAR single use 0.40 FAR multiple use 0.8 FAR for mixed use Mixed Use Permitted with special permit Mixed use permitted without special permit. Retail permitted in new mixed use without special permit. Maximum Building Height 35 feet (2 story) 35 feet (residential permitted in a 3rd story within roofline in mixed use building) Maximum front setback from street 10 feet 15- 20 feet for mixed use. For pre-existing structures, if area compliant, 10- 15 foot setback may be permitted by Planning Board. Limitations on uses by floor In mixed use buildings (with special permit): o Ground floor commercial o Upper floors residential2 In mixed use buildings: o Ground floor ƒ at least 50% must be commercial use and face street frontage ƒ At least 60% of front façade facing street must be glass o Second Floor–either residential or non- residential permitted o Third floor – residential only Off-Street Parking Requirement Residential: 2 spaces per unit Commercial: 1 per 250 sf of retail/service floor area 1 per 300 sf of office/daycare floor area Residential: 1 parking space per unit plus 1 additional parking space for each bedroom in excess of one Commercial: (same as C-2) Corner Lots: Any building located on a street corner shall be deemed to have building fronts on each of the intersecting streets which form the corner. 1 Only proposed changes are listed, other regulations remain the same. 2 See Village Code 3 Parcels to be included (by tax lot) are attached to Introductory Law in Appendix A The increase in FAR to 0.80 and allowing a third story within existing 35 foot height limit would only be available to mixed use developments where the proposed site plan met all other regulations in the code, including parking requirements8. In other words, if a proposed mixed use building used a 0.8 FAR, but parking requirements for this level of development could not be achieved on that lot, then it would not meet the code, and a less dense development would result. Design regulations for the Harmon/South Riverside gateway overlay would remain the same as in the existing code, but would be extended to the proposed expansion area. This includes requirements for open space, landscaped areas, buffers of trees, signage, glare, lighting and                                                             8 Except where parking regulation is otherwise permitted to be waived by the Planning Board as part of site plan approval, such as the west side of South Riverside Avenue between Benedict Boulevard and Clinton Street (Village Code Section 230-35). Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  building orientation (Section230-20.5). Design guidelines specific to Harmon/South Riverside (Section 230-20.6) will also be extended to the expanded H/SRGD area. These guidelines are specific to the Harmon area, and are intended to enhance the small-scale character of the district and improve connections between the train station and the Harmon/South Riverside shopping area. Land uses adjacent to the study area (primarily residential to the east and west) will still be adjacent to a C-2 district, but with the gateway overlay extended, the specific gateway regulations will apply to the all of the parcels described in the draft law (see Tables 1 and 2). This means that the more stringent landscape, buffer and screening requirements with the gateway overlay would be required of any new mixed use development, and this should be a beneficial impact to adjacent residences. The original gateway and related regulations required a special permit for mixed use applications and retail use on the first floor. It is noted that issuance of a special permit is not the same as a zoning change or zoning variance. Elimination of the special permit requirements simply eliminates one more step in the approval process, which should expedite this process and help meet the village objectives for the revitalization of this area. However, the village still has review authority over applications in the form of site plan approval, and applicants have to satisfy the requirements of the underlying zoning (C-2) and the overlay district to gain approval. As described previously, the adoption of the Harmon gateway amendments is a zoning change, and does not propose any new development. However, in order to analyze a level of potential impact, assumptions were made and three development scenarios were evaluated. Using the assumptions and scenarios described previously, if developed with mixed use as described in Scenario #1 (likely Anticipated Level of Development), the study area could generate approximately 10,323 sf of new commercial uses and up to 46 residential units. If developed with mixed use structures as described in Scenario #2 or #3 (100% build-out scenarios), the existing H/SRGD and expansion area could contain a total of approximately 38,723 to 39,604 sf of commercial uses and ±145 -146 residential units. It is noted that, since Scenarios 2 and 3 represent full build out to a maximum level, the amount of existing development including retail, commercial, restaurant, service uses and residential uses would need to be factored out of that total to arrive at an amount of new development. Hence, the development assumptions for the scenarios are conservative. According to the study prepared by Danth, Inc. (July 2008), the Harmon area could market up to 16,000 sf of commercial space, but only 2,000 sf of the current space meets the quality standards that attract tenants. Therefore, approximately 14,400 sf of new commercial space could be supported if the size, price and quality of the space were right. There is also demand for an additional 3,000 sf of small professional office or studio space. Therefore, the level of commercial development estimated in Scenario #1 could be absorbed in the existing market demand, and 46 new apartments would be located within the Harmon area. This scenario is considered to be a realistic, as a likely build-out over time, since it encompasses parcels that are currently underutilized or vacant. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  With Scenarios #2 and #3 (the 100% build out scenarios), the level of commercial development would be higher than what the Danth study estimated could be absorbed by the market, therefore, these scenarios could create land use impacts and would very likely draw demand from other commercial areas in the village, counter to the objectives of this Proposed Action. Similarly, these two scenarios estimate up to 146 apartments total (without subtracting the existing apartments), three times the amount in Scenario #1. The probability of Scenarios #2 or #3 occurring, even over an extended period of time, is considered unlikely. These scenarios envision redevelopment of the entire gateway and expansion area, with new construction (tear down of all existing structures) at the maximum possible level of development; all in new mixed use structures. The intent of the Proposed Action is to encourage and expand upon recommendations and improvements for the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District that are presented in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, new mixed use structures that include residential apartments would encourage lower cost, smaller sized, multi-family dwellings as described and recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Action is considered to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described within this EAF Report. Proposed Action will be reviewed by the Croton on Hudson Waterfront Advisory Committee for consistency with LWRP policies. Potential impacts to the LWRP are not anticipated to be significant. In terms of the Proposed Action’s impacts on existing land uses, it is noted that this level of assumed development includes several parcels that are adjacent to the existing single family homes on Young Avenue, as well as some adjacent residential structures on Wayne Street. Since new development in the expanded area would now carry with it the restrictions and guidelines of the Gateway Overlay District, these adjacent land uses will have more protections than currently with the C-2 zone alone (landscape screening, buffers, lighting, design review, etc). Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  b. Aesthetic and Historic Resources Existing Conditions The South Riverside/Harmon Gateway and its proposed expansion area comprises approximately 3 blocks of South Riverside Avenue, as well as a portion of Croton Point Avenue, and is primarily built up with two-story, small-scale commercial structures (see Exhibit 5, Parcel Identification with Photographs). There are a few vacant parcels (without buildings), but most of those vacant parcels are paved, and many are being used for parking or storage. (See Exhibit 4, Existing Land Use and Exhibit 6, Vacant and Underutilized Parcels). The existing buildings are comprised of a mix of architectural styles and materials, including brick, stucco, and wood frame. Although generally one and two story, some three-story buildings are found in the block of South Riverside Avenue between Benedict Boulevard and Clinton Street. The west side of this block, in its existing condition, is more pedestrian friendly, with wide sidewalks, street furniture, street trees, fewer curb cuts, storefronts with glass windows, etc. Original zoning would permit new structures up to 35 feet in height in the C-2 zone, and this parameter is not proposed to be changed. Many other portions of the South Riverside Avenue frontage are less pedestrian-friendly, with large expanses of asphalt and frequent curb cuts, parking lots in front of the buildings, and a lack of street trees. The gateway area also contains overhead utility lines, and has limited landscaping. These features detract from the aesthetic quality of the area, and were described as such in the Gateway Districts DGEIS (2003). Proposals for improvement of this gateway area were shown in Figure 4.5 of that DGEIS9, and included a Gateway Feature, a Gateway Sign, sidewalk improvements (on Croton Point Avenue) as well as sidewalk improvements, street tree planting, reducing curb cuts and providing planting to screen auto storage areas and long term placement of utilities underground on South Riverside Avenue. The expansion of the original Harmon/SR Gateway Area is located approximately 1,500 feet from the Hudson River at its closest point (the north end at the intersection of South Riverside and Oneida Avenue). The gateway area is higher in elevation than the lands closer to the river and Route 9, however, direct views to the river and adjacent shores from South Riverside Avenue or Croton Point Avenue are blocked in most locations by existing buildings, structures and trees. The photographs in the following exhibits document the specific conditions in the field today along South Riverside Avenue (as of May 2010). Even though these photographs were taken when trees are in leaf, these photographs indicate that some seasonal views to the Hudson River maybe potentially available in only a few places to a pedestrian along South Riverside Avenue, but open views to the river are primarily blocked by existing buildings and vegetation. One can potentially see partial, seasonal (winter) views of the river if looking west from South Riverside Avenue down Croton Point Avenue. Photographs of potential views from this portion of South Riverside, as well as from Croton Point Avenue are included in Exhibit 10, Photograph Key and Exhibit 11, Photographs of Views toward the River (Photographs 1 – 18). 9 DGEIS, BFJ, Figure 4.5 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Within the original H/SR Gateway District, Photographs 1 through 6 indicate views looking in the direction of the Hudson River from South Riverside Avenue. Photograph 1 is the view in the direction of the river from South Riverside Ave/Croton Point Avenue intersection. Photograph 2 shows the Gulf gas station and its canopy over the pumps. Photograph 3 shows the vacant lots between the Gulf station and the now vacant Oil City station. As can be seen, the trees in the distance are higher than any of the surrounding buildings. Photograph 4 is the view toward the now vacant Oil City, with its structures and canopy. Photograph 5 is a view directly down the length of Benedict Boulevard, from South Riverside. The firehouse and commercial buildings are visible on the right side of the photograph, as well as the existing vegetation and overhead utility lines. Photograph 6 shows the view of same street, from a point looking out of the Harmon/SR gateway district toward the Harmon Firehouse. Inside the expansion area of the Harmon/SR gateway, photographs 7 through 12 show views in the direction of the river from South Riverside Avenue. Photograph 7 indicates the view toward the existing 2-1/2 mixed use story buildings. Photographs 8 and 9 show a deli and restaurant, both one-story, and the vegetation in the distance on the hillside behind them. A seasonal view of the river may be possible looking between these two buildings. Photograph 10 is a view directly down the length of Clinton Street, from South Riverside Avenue toward the river. On the right of the photograph, Luk Oil and a residential property (that is outside the H/SRGD) and overhead utility lines are visible, and parking for the Japanese restaurant is visible on the left of the photograph. Photograph 11, looking toward the river, shows the Luk Oil station and its canopy, as well as the existing residential structure and tree line in the distance. Photograph 12 shows the view toward the river with the now vacant Westchester Coach lot, the one story structure, and treeline in the distance. Photograph 13 is the view down Oneida Ave toward South Riverside Avenue, including the auto body shop, and surrounding tree line; as well as existing office buildings which are visible on the right of the photograph. Photograph 14 is the view along South Riverside to the north, looking outside the gateway (not toward the river). Photographs 15-18 are views toward the river, from areas outside the H/SRGD. Photograph 15 is a view from the residential area adjacent to the district – from the intersection of Benedict Boulevard and Young Avenue. The rear of 73 Benedict Boulevard within the district (Perfect Nails/former Harmon sales office) is visible on the right. Neither the Harmon fire house nor the parking lot at the end of Benedict Boulevard are clearly visible from this distance. Photograph 16 is taken outside the gateway district, further south on South Riverside Avenue, just past Croton Point Avenue. These are some of the commercial buildings between the Harmon/SR gateway and Van Cortlandt Manor. It shows the view over the top of the parking and retail areas on that corner, with a view of the Hudson River in the distance, beyond the retail buildings. Photograph 17 is taken from a residential property on Wayne Street, outside the district, where the river is visible. Photograph 18 is the end of Benedict Boulevard, used as a parking lot, looking toward the river. Due to the vegetation, no view to the river is available here from street level. Outside the gateway district, in many other parts of Croton-on-Hudson, especially further south on South Riverside Avenue, and along Route 9, there are views of the River and western shore lands. Although windows in upper floors of existing buildings on the west side of South Riverside Avenue may afford some views of the River, this analysis focuses on views from Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  publically available vantage points (i.e., streets), recognizing that both the existing and proposed zoning allows buildings of 35 feet in height. According to the Village Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) report from 1992, “Along South Riverside Avenue from Shop-Rite Plaza at the south end to its intersection with Route 129 to the north, the proliferation of commercial establishments has taken on a negative visual appearance. The great variety of buildings in this area have become, in many cases, shabby and dilapidated… “ (LWRP, page II-25). This description includes the areas of South Riverside Avenue outside the gateway on either end, but also includes the Harmon/SR area. These statements were made in 1992, however, and some conditions have changed, and the photographs of the views from South Riverside Avenue included in this report represent current conditions (Exhibit 11, Photographs 1 - 15). Van Cortlandt Manor, a national historic landmark, is located outside of the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway district, approximately 500 feet south of Croton Point Avenue, on the north, south and west sides of South Riverside Avenue (see Exhibit 12, Van Cortlandt Manor Location). Since there are several large commercial establishments on parcels between the Croton Point Avenue end of the gateway district and the gated entrance to this historic site (retail stores, gym, supermarket, equipment rental, etc.), it is not considered to be contiguous. The gated entry to the Manor is substantially separated from the Gateway Overlay District by these commercial properties. However, one of the reasons the Harmon/SR Gateway district is considered important is that it is also the gateway to the entrance of this historic site, and therefore important to the character of the Village of Croton-On-Hudson. Regarding Van Cortlandt Manor’s relationship to the gateway district, the design guidelines aim to create a more attractive setting for this entry to the Village and to Van Cortlandt Manor. Van Cortlandt Manor historic site contains a restored stone manor house, a brick ferry house, gardens and grounds open to the public from roughly May to December. There are visitor activities and programs revolving around life of a patriot family living in the years just after the American revolution. Members of the Van Cortlandt family first arrived to the area in 1638, and began acquiring land as early as 1677. The manor house and immediate grounds remained in the property of a direct heir of Stephanus Van Cortlandt until 194510. This historic property is now managed by Historic Hudson Valley and serves tourists that travel from around the area to see the historic site. Within the expansion area of the H/SRGD there is a site with local history: the former Harmon Real Estate office (73 Benedict Boulevard). Located on the corner of Benedict Boulevard and South Riverside Avenue, this structure is privately owned, and is currently the location of an existing business, Perfect Nails, directly adjacent to the former Croton Dodge. This structure is not listed on the State or National Register of historic places, but a designation was sought by the Croton Historical Society (application filed in the fall of 2009). After being evaluated by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)11, in the opinion of the SHPO, the structure is not eligible for listing since it no longer resembles its historic appearance.                                                             10 Van Cortlandt Manor, compiled by Lee Northshield, from Croton on Hudson Historical Society (www.crontononhudson.org) 11 SHPO, in New York State, is the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  According to the documents submitted by the Croton Historical Society12, the structure, also referred to as the Clifford B. Harmon building, is one story, with a gabled roof, and now contains vinyl siding, with a stone and brick chimney (see Exhibit 13 for photographs). This building was the first constructed on the 500-acre property developed by Clifford Benedict Harmon (as a member of Wood, Harmon & Co.) in approximately 1900, to be used as the real estate sales office for the residential lots being sold in the Harmon area13. Potential Impacts-Aesthetic and Historic Resources: The Proposed Action includes amendments to the existing Harmon/South Riverside gateway district, as well as an expansion in gateway overlay area. The amendments that supplement the existing code include visual/aesthetic considerations including the requirement for 60% of the commercial façade to be glass (to encourage retail, and pedestrian activity) and to encourage the parking in the rear of buildings, allowing wider sidewalks and potentially street furniture, street trees, etc. along the sidewalks. The permitted building height is not changed from that in the previously existing code (maximum 35 feet), therefore that aspect of the streetscape will not be impacted beyond what could be constructed today. Residential development is permitted within the roofline of a three story building (maximum 35 height). There is precedent for this in some existing buildings in the area now. Although the FAR is increased from 0.35-0.4 to 0.8, with the building height remaining the same, along with parking requirements on existing small lots, it is not anticipated that a significant number of lots will be redeveloped with structures built to the maximum height. The intent of the Proposed Action is to encourage development whereby the design standards are intended to maximize visual appeal and pedestrian experience. The DGEIS prepared for the original gateway overlay design regulations (now adopted into the Code) described the visual character of the area and the intent to improve the aesthetics of the gateway to the Village. The visual features analyzed in the DGEIS included curb cuts, open space, signage, lighting, building orientation, sidewalks. Design regulations for these features have been implemented into the code, and none of those regulations are proposed to be amended with the Proposed Action. As described previously, the adoption of the Harmon gateway amendments would not create any new development per se. However, using the assumptions and scenarios described previously, if developed with mixed use as described in Scenario #1 (likely Anticipated Level of Development), the study area could contain approximately 10,323 sf of new commercial uses and up to 46 residential units. This level of development includes parcels that are adjacent to the existing single family homes on Young Avenue, as well as some adjacent structures on Wayne Street. The new development described in Scenario #1 would likely comprise 3 story (with maximum height 35 feet) buildings on the vacant and underutilized sites. If developed with mixed use as described in Scenario #2 or #3 (100% build-out scenarios), the study area could contain approximately 38,723 – 39,604 sf of total commercial uses and 145-146                                                             12 From attachments to letter from Joyce Finnerty, former Village Historian, to Mayor and Village Board, dated 10/26/09 13 Clifford Harmon’s New City, The Croton Historian, Winter 1996. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  total residential units. The original gateway overlay design regulations (now adopted into the Code) were intended to create a more attractive setting for the gateway area to the Van Cortlandt Manor (through landscaping, sidewalk improvements, etc.), and the current proposed amendments are also intended to enhance the Harmon area visually, and are estimated to create a positive impact on the neighborhood and entrance to the historic site in the vicinity. The new zoning amendment was intended to keep the scale of new development within existing maximums. There is no change proposed in existing screening/buffering requirements for this gateway area. Where commercial or mixed use is adjacent to residential uses, landscape buffers are required. The intent is for the front (and corners, if applicable) of the commercial and mixed use buildings to be for pedestrian circulation and shopping, and the rear for parking, with a minimum of curb cuts onto the street. The amendments provide for the Planning Board to reduce or waive side yard setback requirements during site plan review to encourage unified streetscapes. The intent of these proposed amendments is to have an overall positive impact to the gateway area and the village. Views to River: Although the extension of the Harmon/SR gateway district is in relatively close proximity of the Hudson River (±1500 to 2500 feet), given the fact that most of the expansion of the gateway area is built up, or where vacant, the river not visible due to existing trees, blocking existing views toward the river is not anticipated to be a significant impact. As mentioned previously, the Proposed Action is a zoning amendment, not a construction project, and the zoning would allow for the same building height as currently permitted. However, it is possible that a site that is now vacant or underutilized could get approval for a larger building up to 35 feet in height, but this could also happen without the new zoning. Although plans for new mixed use structures that meet new zoning requirements would not require a special permit, they would still require review and site plan approval from the Village. This process would evaluate aesthetic concerns along with zoning compliance and engineering. Character of area relative to Van Cortlandt Manor: The impact of the proposed zoning amendments to the character of area relative to Van Cortlandt manor/gateway entry is not anticipated to be significant. The intent of the proposed amendments is the same as that of the original gateway zoning – to enhance the aesthetic character of the gateway, making it more attractive for visitors to the Manor and the Village. Proposals indicated in the DGEIS (Figure 4.5), such as landscaping, screening, sidewalk improvements, gateway signage, etc. still would apply with the proposed zoning amendments. Impact on Harmon sales building (73 Benedict Boulevard): Although the Harmon building may be considered locally significant, it is not designated as a historic site or landmark by state or federal agencies. It is privately owned, and technically it could be demolished or redeveloped now, outside the gateway area, since it has no protected status. The proper method to address potential impacts of demolition or redevelopment of this building would be to protect this structure by designating it as historic. However, this has not been accomplished as of this date. A letter from the former village historian to the Village Board Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  and Mayor (dated 10/26/09) suggests other uses, including use as a tourist information center and/or museum for Croton. This is currently a privately owned property, and the property owner would have to propose and gain approval for those uses to make those suggestions occur. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE BENEDICT BLVD ONEIDA AVE WAYNE ST WAYNE ST CROTON POINT AVE S. RIVERSIDE AVE BENEDICT BLVD CLINTON ST Gulf Station Vacant Oil City Fire Station Luk Oil Station Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Photograph Location 100’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Croton-on-Hudson, New York GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 10 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants PHOTOGRAPH KEY VIEWS TO THE HUDSON RIVER Exhibit 11 View of Croton Point Avenue (opposite Gulf gas station), looking southwest toward Route 9. View south across South Riverside Avenue toward Gulf gas station with canopy on corner of Croton Point Avenue. Exhibit 11 View northwest across South Riverside Avenue toward vacant lots and now- vacant Oil City gas station. View northwest across South Riverside Avenue toward now-vacant Oil City gas station. Exhibit 11 View from the intersection of South Riverside Avenue and Benedict Boulevard, looking southwest down Benedict Boulevard toward Wayne Street. Firehouse and commercial buildings visible to right. View southwest on Benedict Boulevard toward buildings just outside the H/SRG District (fi rehouse and residential structure on Wayne Street). Exhibit 11 View southwest toward existing 21/2-story mixed-use buildings on South Riverside Avenue. Firehouse visible behind other buildings. View southwest toward one-story deli building on South Riverside Avenue directly opposite former Croton Dodge. (Mixed-use building on left; Japanese restaurant on right). Exhibit 11 View southwest toward mixed-use building, deli and Japanese restaurant on South Riverside Avenue. View southwest from the intersection of South Riverside Avenue and Clinton Street, looking directly down Clinton Street. Japanese restaurant parking on left; Luk Oil gas station on right. Exhibit 11 View southwest toward Luk Oil gas station on South Riverside Avenue. View southwest toward now-vacant one-story structure and parking areas on South Riverside Avenue. Exhibit 11 View southwest down Oneida Avenue toward intersection of Oneida Avenue and South Riverside Avenue. View northwest on South Riverside Avenue, leaving north end of H/SRG District. Oneida Avenue on right; auto body shop on left. Exhibit 11 Outside H/SRG District; view southwest toward the gateway district from the intersection of Benedict Boulevard and Young Avenue. Outside H/SRG District; view south from South Riverside Avenue (south of its intersection with Croton Point Avenue). View of Hudson River in distance, beyond retail buildings. Exhibit 11 Outside H/SRG District; view south from a residence on Wayne Street. Views of Hudson River in distance. Outside H/SRG District; view looking southwest at the intersection of Benedict Boulevard and Wayne Street; Benedict Boulevard street-end is used as a parking lot. LI LI RB RB US-9 US-9 YOUNG AVE YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE HASTINGS AVE PENFIELD AVE PENFIELD AVE SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVE SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVE ONEIDA AVE ONEIDA AVE CROTON POINT AVE CROTON POINT AVE NORDICA DR NORDICA DR CLEVELAND DR CLEVELAND DR FRANKLIN AVE FRANKLIN AVE GATEWAY PLZ GATEWAY PLZ DEVON ST DEVON ST PINEY POINT AVE PINEY POINT AVE LI RB US-9 YOUNG AVE HASTINGS AVE PENFIELD AVE SOUTH RIVERSIDE AVE ONEIDA AVE CROTON POINT AVE NORDICA DR CLEVELAND DR FRANKLIN AVE GATEWAY PLZ DEVON ST PINEY POINT AVE Gate Gate Van Cortlandt Van Cortlandt Manor Manor House House Van Cortlandt Manor House Croton River Gate Original Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Expansion of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District Van Cortlandt Manor 200’ DATE: July 2010 SOURCE: Village of Croton-on-Hudson GIS HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 12 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants VAN CORTLANDT MANOR LOCATION 73 Benedict Boulevard as viewed from South Riverside Avenue. Rear of 73 Benedict Boulevard (view from parking lot). 73 Benedict Boulevard as viewed from Benedict Boulevard. 73 Benedict Boulevard as viewed from vacant parcel on southeast side of Benedict Boulevard. DATE: July 2010 HARMON GATEWAY OVERLAY ZONING AMENDMENTS Croton-on-Hudson, New York Exhibit 13 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. - Planning and Development Consultants PHOTOGRAPHS OF 73 BENEDICT BOULEVARD Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  c. Growth and Character of Community i. Schools Existing Conditions Croton Harmon School District school facilities are all located in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, and the district consists of 95% of the Village of Croton–on- Hudson, as well as some portions of the Towns of Cortlandt and Yorktown. School taxes are collected by the municipalities for the school district (in this case, school taxes are collected by the Town of Cortlandt). In May 2010, Croton-Harmon School District approved a $43.86 million spending plan (which will raise taxes 1.64 percent). A total of 1,77414 students in the district (2009-10) attend one of the three schools: Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary School (grades K-4), Pierre Van Cortlandt Middle School (grades 5-8) and Croton-Harmon High School (grades 9-12). Enrollments by school (2008) at these facilities are listed below15: Carrie E. Tompkins Elementary: 657 students Pierre Van Cortlandt Middle School: 568 students Croton-Harmon High School: 561 students According to the June 2009 Demographic Study (Ross Haber Associates, Inc.), 4.1 percent of the respondents of the census in the district send their children to private and/or parochial schools. Croton-Harmon School District has a new Superintendent of Schools as of the 2009- 2010 school year, Dr. Edward Fuhrman. A demographic study was recently undertaken by the school district (prepared by Ross Haber Associates, Inc., June 2009). This study included a census study (surveys completed by residents) and enrollment projections. For the census that was undertaken, 32 percent of the residential population of the district, by residence, returned the forms (5,100 forms were mailed out). The report states that this return rate is “lower than optimal but this is still useful information”. The census study elicited information about school age children, as well as other demographic data such as ethnicity and home ownership. The largest percentage of families reported having two children, with families having one child being the second largest.16 The median age for homeowners/renters (approximately 90 percent home owners and 10 percent renters) was in the 41-55 range, and this was also the largest group having children attending school. The report indicates that there is a decline in the number of pre-school aged children living in the district (consistent                                                             14 Westchester County School Boards Association Facts & Figures (2009-2010) . 15 Telephone communication with Croton Harmon School District business office, August 2009 16 Table 3, Demographic Study for Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, Ross Haber Associates, Inc., June 2009. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  with current migration patterns, housing availability and housing market). The census indicates that the overwhelming majority stated they had no intention of moving away from the district, and the population of the district seems very stable. The five-year projections indicate that overall enrollment will continue to grow, although at a slower rate than the previous five years. Enrollment projections indicate the total enrollment in the district to increase to a peak of 1,801 students in 2010-11, then decrease again to 1,791 students through the year 2012-13, after which it may increase again to a total enrolment of 1,80617 students in 2013-14. The Harmon/South Riverside area contains some apartments now, and as of fall 2009, there are 9 school age children living there now (at four separate addresses), ranging from kindergarten to 8th grade.18 The school district also provided actual numbers of students that reside in Bari Manor, for reference. According to Ed Fuhrman19, Superintendent of Schools, 25 school-age children live in the 82 apartments in Bari Manor, which has 1, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments. Of this total, 11 students are in grades K to 4; 4 students are in grades 5 to 8; 9 students are in grades 9-12 and one is “ungraded” (special education). Since Bari Manor includes 3 bedroom units, it’s student generation ratio is expected to be higher than apartments in mixed use buildings with mostly one- and some two- bedroom units. (See Chapter III. Residential Market Factors). Potential Impacts to Schools Although the zoning amendments will not create any new development, three potential development scenarios were analyzed to give estimates of impact of both a likely build-out and a theoretical maximum build-out for the area, using all new, mixed-use development. Detailed descriptions of these scenarios are included in the previous sections (see Land Use and Zoning). Scenario #1 – (Likely Level of Development): In order to estimate the number of potential public school children that would be added to the district with Scenario #1 (46 residential units), standard planning multipliers were used. According to Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, approximately 4 new students (K-12) would be generated by 46 one-bedroom apartments with rents over $1,000/month (see Table 8 below). If an equal mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units were used, the Rutgers multipliers indicate that the 46 apartments in Scenario #1 could generate approximately 8 new students, which would be added to the 9 school age children living there now. Any new school children generated by private development in the Harmon area would not be generated all at once, and any new school population would be spread                                                             17 Table 4, Demographic Study for Croton-Harmon Union Free School District, Ross Haber Associates, Inc., June 2009. 18 Communication with Ross Haber Associates, 10/6/2009. 19 Phone conversation with Mr. Edward Fuhrman, 9/14/09 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  out over the 13 grade levels. (School taxes are discussed below). Table 8 Estimated Number of School Children (Scenario #1) # units Multiplier (Schoolchildren/unit) Total school children generated Scenario #1: Likely Level of Development (All 1 BR units) x 0.081 4 children Scenario #1: Likely Level of Development (50/50 mix 1 BR and 2 BR) x 0.081 x 0.23 2 2 children 6 children 8 new children in H/SRGD Source: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers (June 2006) 1 One-Bedroom rental apartment units, more than $1,000/month 2 Two-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $1,100/month Scenarios #2 and #3 – (100% build-out: theoretical maximum): According to the same source, a range of approximately 12 to 23 students (K-12) would be generated by ±145-146 apartments, assuming either all one-bedroom units, or an equal mix of 1 and 2 bedroom units (see Table 9 below). It is noted that the full implementation of these two scenarios is highly unlikely, as described previously. Table 9 Estimated Number of School Children (Scenarios #2-3, 100% Theoretical build out) # units Multiplier (Schoolchildren/unit) Total school children generated Scenario #1: Likely Level of Development (All 1 BR units) x 0.081 12 children Scenario #1: Likely Level of Development (50/50 mix 1 BR and 2 BR) x 0.081 x 0.23 2 6 children 17 children 23 total children in H/SRGD Source: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers (June 2006) 1 One-Bedroom rental apartment units, more than $1,000/month 2 Two-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $1,100/month ii. Taxes To estimate taxes generated, the specific new uses, number and size of residential units and market value of new mixed use buildings are required. In speaking with the Village of Croton Tax Assessor and the Town of Cortlandt Tax assessor20, these factors would be required to provide an estimate of future tax revenues. Since the Proposed Action is a zoning amendment and not a specific project, the potential redevelopment scenarios analyzed in this EAF will again be used to the extent possible. The Village taxes are roughly one-third of the taxes on any given mixed use property, with the Town of Cortlandt collecting the other two-thirds, for the school district, town and county. 20 Phone communication with tax assessors, fall 2009 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  The Harmon Business Development Committee’s report in August 2008 summarized their presentation on the Harmon zoning recommendations, including a preliminary discussion of potential impact on village taxes. Since future market values are not known, the current redevelopment scenarios are analyzed below, using the same assumptions for a tax analysis that were used in the HBDC report. For the fiscal 2008-09 year, the HBDC report indicated that the total village property taxes on these 36 parcels in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway study area (which total approximately 328,019 sf in area) was about $145,490. Table 10 Tax Estimates (Village and School Taxes) Condition1 Scenario #12 Scenario #2 Scenario #3 Commercial Area (sf) 53,817 10,323 39,604 38,723 Residential units NA Residential (sf) 9,716 46,000 145,000 146,000 Total Area (sf) 63,533 56,323 184,604 184,723 Average property tax per sf (08-09 rates) $2.29 $2.29 $2.29 $2.29 Annual Total: Village Property Tax Revenue $145,490.57 $128,979 ($274,469 total buildout2) $422,743 $423,015 Annual Total: School Tax Revenue 3 $247,075 $219,006 ($466,081 total build out2) $717,817_ $718,279 1 From Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations (HBDC, August 2008) 2 Scenario #1 assumes redevelopment on 9 parcels, and was combined with revenues for existing development to compare with full build-out scenarios 2 and 3. 3 School tax rate (1.698) was extrapolated from HDBC report The tax revenue for Scenario #1 indicates only the new mixed use development. Since Scenario #1 assumes redevelopment on 9 parcels, therefore the numbers in this column of the table were only partial revenues, so they were added to existing revenues to come up with a total to compare with full build-out scenarios 2 and 3. Scenarios #2 and #3 indicate full build-out of the existing H/SRGD and proposed expansion area, including an increase in residential space which would result in greatly increased tax revenues. It should be noted that in any case, potential build-out of the H/SRGD area would be a gradual process over time, and each site plan would be reviewed by the planning board for conformance to all the regulations. It is noted again that the full implementation of scenarios #2 and #3 is highly unlikely. It is anticipated that the school tax revenue in all redevelopment scenarios would offset the costs of potential new students to the district, especially considering the gradual increase in the school population. The estimated cost figure of $14,873 per new student was used, utilizing The Croton-Harmon Union Free School District Official Budget Document, Appropriations and Revenues for the 2010-2011 school year. According to the school district’s report, the total budget for the 2010-2011 school year is $43,860,828 which represents nearly $24,724 per student for the total of 1,774 students in the district. This number, however, includes both capital and Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  administrative costs, which would not be affected by the increase of a modest number of additional students. Utilizing the budget’s program costs of $31,412,192 divided by the total enrollment (1,774 students) equals $17,706 per student. Additionally, the budget revenues are comprised of property taxes and other revenues, with a non- property tax total of $7,212,624, representing 16 percent of the total revenues. Hence, the property taxes required to meet the program costs of each new student is $14,873 ($17,706 x .84). It is noted that the costs used are average costs for all students, including special needs students. Using these figures, the cost of the new students would range from $59,492 to $118,984 for Scenario #1 (from 4 to 8 school children) compared to school taxes of $219,600 generated. In Scenario #1, more than 15 additional students would be the point where costs would not be completely covered by taxes generated. Even if state aid and other revenues were not included, using the cost per student of $17,706 x 8 students, costs would total $141,648, still well below the tax revenues generated. Costs would range from $178,476 to $342,079 for Scenario #3 (from 12 to 23 school children) compared to school taxes of $717,279 generated. In Scenarios #2-3, more than 48 additional students would be the point where costs would not be completely covered by taxes generated. It is noted again that the full implementation of Scenarios #2 and #3 is highly unlikely. iii. Community Services The Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area is an established commercial district, with water, sewer, police, fire and waste disposal services available at the present time. According to the Village Engineer, the village’s infrastructure in this area of the Village is in good condition with adequate capacity, as described below. The water main in this vicinity was recently replaced. According to the Village Engineer21, the majority of the area is served by a looped system and is adequate to serve the existing and likely future potential development. There is one area of the overlay district that is on a dead–end water line (properties on South Riverside from Benedict Avenue south toward the Shop Rite). Plans have been prepared to address this by providing a loop that would connect this area to the dead end line on Wayne Avenue, providing a looped water main for this area as well. Also, the Village has plans to drill an additional well to provide extra water supply village-wide. The sanitary sewer in this vicinity is contained in a large main which runs under South Riverside and has ample capacity for expansion22. Sanitary waste from most of the area flows north to the Westchester County pump station on Municipal Place, and the flow is currently under design capacity. A small portion of the area (south of Benedict Avenue in the area of Kiko restaurant, Sonny Abbott’s) flows via gravity to the county line. According to the Village Engineer24, there are a few septic systems                                                             21 Phone communication with Village Engineer Daniel O’Connor, 6/14/10 22 P. 34, Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations (HDBC 8/26/08) Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  in the existing overlay district: on the 3 parcels along Croton Point Avenue, as well as a few on South Riverside Avenue (veterinarian, podiatrist). These properties could easily be connected to the public sewer system. According to the Village Engineer, there is adequate capacity. Potential Impacts Since no new development is proposed, no direct impacts on community services and facilities will be created by the zoning amendments. Based on the condition and capacity of the village infrastructure in this area, short term development in the area is not likely to raise costs village-wide for infrastructure or services. In the longer term, new mixed use development permitted with an increase in FAR in this area could bring some incremental level of impact, gradually over a period of time, if maximum theoretical build-out were achieved. The village water supply and county sanitary sewer system is adequate to serve the existing and likely future potential development (Scenario #1). It is noted again that the full implementation of Scenarios #2 and #3 is highly unlikely. In all cases, infrastructure needs will be looked at for individual projects as site plans for those applications are reviewed. Population increase with the “likely” potential development (Scenario #1, all 1 BR units) would be 77 new residents (see Table 11). If an equal mix of 1- and 2-bedroom units was assumed, population could increase to up to 93 new residents with Scenario #1. Table 11 Estimated Population Scenario #1 (Likely Level of Development) # units Multiplier (people/unit) Total population generated Scenario #1: Likely Level of Development (all 1 BR) x 1.671 77 people Scenario #1: Likely Level of Development (50/50 mix 1 BR and 2 BR) x 1.671 x 2.31 2 93 total new residents in H/SRGD Source: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers (June 2006) 1 One-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $1,000/month 2 Two-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $1,100/month With Scenarios #2 and #3 (100% build-out, with all parcels in the entire district redeveloped with mixed use, using assumptions described in that theoretical maximum) approximately 245 to 291 people could inhabit the H/SRGD area. Since this is a 100% build out, this would be the total population in the H/SRGD with proposed expansion, whereas the Scenario #1 is additional development replacing vacant and underutilized parcels. (See Table 12 below, and descriptions of scenarios under Land Use and Zoning). The likelihood of the theoretical maximum development (Scenarios #2 and #3) being achieved is not considered high, and any level of redevelopment is anticipated to be gradual over time, not causing significant impacts to infrastructure. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Table 12 Estimated Population Scenarios #2-3 (theoretical 100% build out) # units Multiplier (people/unit) Total population generated Scenarios #2 and #3 (100% build-out: theoretical maximum (all 1 BR) x 1.67 1 245 people Scenarios #2 and #3 (100% build-out: theoretical maximum (mix 1 and 2 BR) x 1.671 x 2.31 2 291 total residents in H/SRGD Source: Rutgers University, Center for Urban Policy Research, Residential Demographic Multipliers (June 2006) 1 One-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $1,000/month 2Two-Bedroom rental apartment units, over $1,100/month Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  d. Traffic and Parking Existing Conditions The RBA Group prepared traffic and parking studies to accompany a previously submitted EAF Part 3 Report, which are included in Appendix C (two reports, dated September 2009 and October 200923). These studies still apply to the current Proposed Action, with some refinements, described below. However, it is noted that the traffic and parking studies analyzed all potential development scenarios equally, and by focusing on the maximum potential impacts created by Scenarios #2 and #3 which are not likely to occur (theoretical maximum 100% build out) the conclusions are thereby very conservative. The H/SRGD is approximately ¼-mile west of U.S. 9 and the Croton-Harmon train station (which serves both Metro-North and Amtrak passengers) and around ½-mile west of the Hudson River. Due to the proximity of the train station to the proposed study area, there is a steady stream of traffic along South Riverside Avenue during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. In addition, there are numerous pedestrians who walk to, from, and through the gateway area during these periods. Despite the surge of traffic during the peak commuter periods, however, traffic volumes along the local streets are generally light because most vehicles travel along U.S. 9, rather than the local streets. Traffic Volumes: Existing traffic volumes along South Riverside Avenue are highest during the weekday AM peak period and typically higher south of Benedict Boulevard than north of Benedict Boulevard. Based on 2008 data from the Croton Harmon Parking Facility Study24, the highest traffic volumes in the proposed rezoning area were 1,030 vehicles per hour (vph-222 northbound, 808 southbound) during the weekday AM peak hour. Existing Parking: An inventory of on- and off-street parking supply in the H/SRGD study area was conducted in July 2009 by The RBA Group. Based on that inventory, there were approximately 280-300 existing off-street parking spaces. In addition, there were approximately 27 on-street parallel parking spaces. Parking spaces were not metered, but were signed for 2-hour parking. It is noted too that there is a municipal parking lot on the west end of Benedict Boulevard, just outside of the proposed rezoning area, which provides 15 off-street parking spaces. Potential Impacts-Traffic and Parking Traffic and parking conditions were examined for Scenarios #1 through #3, as described previously in this EAF and in the traffic report in Appendix C25.                                                             23 The RBA Group reports were conducted in 2009 for a previous review of the zoning law, and still apply to the current EAF Part 3 Report as noted herein. 24 Croton Harmon Parking Facility Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Study, The RBA Group, 2008. 25 The RBA Group also developed another Scenario #5 , in which the entire first floor of the development was commercial, with residential units being built on the second and third floors (98 residential units; 53,348 square feet of commercial space; further details are contained in the report in Appendix C).  Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  Trip Generation: The number of trips generated by each redevelopment scenario were calculated using rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. The Proposed Action would allow a combination of residential and commercial space, and it was assumed that the commercial space would include office, restaurant, and general retail uses. The distribution of office to restaurant to retail space was calculated based on existing uses and projected demand as provided in the Village’s Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations and the Commercial District Retail Study (Danth). The resulting commercial distribution used was 34 percent office, 30 percent restaurant, and 36 percent general retail space. Trip generation was calculated for the weekday AM and PM and Saturday peak hours of the adjacent street network, and a 15 percent reduction in residential trips due to the proximity of the study area to the transit station was also applied. The resulting numbers of entering, exiting, and total trips are provided in Table 1 in the traffic report in Appendix C. Since the Scenarios evaluated in the current Proposed Action have changed slightly, Table 13 below provides adjusted numbers, showing the slight increase in trips based on the current Proposed Action (9% increase for residential uses and 8% increase for retail, office, and restaurant). Table 13 Trip Generation Residential1 Retail2 Restaurant2 Office2 total Scenario #1- AM PM SAT Scenario #2- AM PM SAT Scenario #3 AM PM SAT 1 Adjusted for current scenarios: 9% higher than Table 1 in The RBA Group report (September 2009) 2 Adjusted for current scenarios: 8% higher than Table 1 in The RBA Group report (September 2009) It is expected that the greatest number of trips will be generated for Scenario #2, for which the square footage of commercial development would be highest. The trip generation for this scenario is greatest for the Saturday peak hour during which retail and restaurant uses would be most utilized. However, trip generation for the scenario is also high during the weekday PM peak hour when background traffic volumes along South Riverside Avenue would be higher. For this reason, it is anticipated that the weekday PM peak hour would be the critical traffic period in the study area. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  It was found from the trip generation calculations that the commercial, retail and restaurant trips are the most critical, so the proportion of office and retail space was adjusted accordingly. Traffic Analysis: A comparison of the No Build and Build analysis results indicates that there would be little impact to traffic conditions on the study area roadways due to the proposed zoning amendments. For Scenario #1 (42-46 units), there would be no need for mitigation, as there would be no degradation in traffic operations from the No Build to Build conditions. During the weekday AM peak hour, for Scenarios #2 and #3, traffic operations for the southbound movement at the intersection of South Riverside Avenue and Benedict Boulevard would deteriorate slightly. None of these scenarios is considered realistic or likely to occur. However, should a specific site plan in the future present a need, conditions could be addressed by adding a second southbound approach lane (i.e., implementing a southbound left-turn/through lane and a southbound through/right-turn lane) at the intersection. This would require the removal of 6 on-street parking spaces, but should be compensated for by a surplus of parking spaces created by the redevelopment. Parking Generation: Parking generation totals were calculated by land use for the weekday and Saturday peaks using the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 3rd Edition (Parking Generation Manual). The maximum numbers of parking spaces required are provided in Table 3 in The RBA Group’s report in Appendix C. Parking is most needed on a weekend. The number of parking spaces needed based on the zoning amendment’s assumptions is sufficient to accommodate calculated parking needs for Scenario #1. For Scenarios #2 and #3, number of parking spaces needed based on the zoning amendment’s assumptions would be sufficient to accommodate calculated parking needs although some level of shared parking accommodation may be necessary (amount would vary depending upon specifics of proposed redevelopment). Actual parking demand for particular projects would be addressed in site plan review of those individual projects. Since Scenarios #2 and #3 are not anticipated to be achievable in their entirety, parking impacts are not anticipated to be significant. The residential parking ratio in the proposed zoning (1 space per unit plus 1 additional space for each addition bedroom in excess of one) would be a sufficient minimum zoning standard for the range of uses anticipated, with final reviews subject to site plan approval. Any applicants seeking redevelopment with mixed use on parcels in the gateway area would have to demonstrate how they would meet parking requirements, and accommodate that parking on the site. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  III. RESIDENTIAL MARKET FACTORS Identification of competitive housing supply in the market area For this study, information on available apartments for rent was taken from listings on Craigslist.com, the Penny Saver periodical, through listings on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for the dates of April 19, 2010 through June 17, 2010, and from Westchester Residential Opportunities, Inc. Within the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, there are several single-unit apartments available for rent. There is also one garden apartment complex called Bari Manor Apartments located on Old Post Road South. The 82 apartments within this complex include studios, one, two and three-bedroom units. The rent at Bari Manor ranges from: $883 - $1,130 for studios (410 sf); $1,079 for one-bedrooms (465-900 sf); $1,594 for two-bedrooms (860-1140 sf); and $1,688 for three-bedrooms (1025 sf). The studios and one-bedroom apartments have one bathroom and the two- and three- bedroom apartments have 1.5 bathrooms. Another apartment complex in the village is Van Wyck Towers on Grand Street which is a 6-story building that has a total of 35 one, two and three bedroom market rate rental units. The available market-rate single-unit apartments are located in various areas of the Village, and are generally accessory apartments or are located on either the top or bottom floor of a two-family home. The rents for these units are generally higher than those noted above, and vary based on the factors such as washer/dryer, dishwasher, air conditioning, garage parking and location of the unit. The average monthly rental price for a one-bedroom apartment in the area is approximately $1,100, for a two-bedroom apartment approximately $1,500, and for a 3+ bedroom apartment approximately $2,800. In addition to Bari Manor and single-unit apartments, there is age-restricted and income restricted housing in the Village. Symphony Knoll is an 11 unit (3-story) complex on Mt. Airy Road, which is affordable senior citizen housing, adjacent to 12- unit Mt. Airy Woods, another income-restricted complex. Symphony Knoll has eight units at 650 sf and three at 800 sf; rents will range from $793 to 975 per month, plus utilities. Another example is Springvale Apartments, an apartment complex for persons aged 55 and older located just north of the Village. According to the Westchester Residential Opportunities, Inc., in the 4th quarter of 2006, average advertised rents in the Village of Croton (by bedrooms) were: studio $880; one-bedroom $1,100; two bedroom $1,725; and three bedroom $1,975. Average rent during the same time period for the entire county was higher (except for two bedroom units): studio $900; one-bedroom $1,270; two bedrooms $1,645; and three bedrooms $2,031. Of the estimated 342,532 households in the county, 40 percent rent, and demand for rental units is relatively strong, especially with contributing factors such as tighter credit standards for homebuyers and the housing Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  market slump.26 The Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations report (HBDC, 2008) indicated that local real estate agents had reported a strong market for good one-bedroom units within a 5 minute walk to the train station. Evaluation of the Attractiveness of Potential New Housing As described previously, the Proposed Action involves a zoning amendment, so no new housing is directly proposed. However, mixed use structures would be a permitted use within guidelines of the regulations, and with that could come additional apartments in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway study area. There are a number of apartments in the study area at this time, in mixed use buildings (upstairs or behind commercial establishments). It is anticipated, based on the location on a primarily commercial street (close to conveniences and shopping), but also within walking distance to Metro-North Rail Station and Route 9, that residential units would appeal primarily to commuters, singles and young professionals, and perhaps empty nesters. Given the location, it would be less likely to attract families who tend to prefer quieter areas with more open space around the units. Given that there are no real market precedents in Croton for owner-occupied residential in mixed use buildings, it is not likely that residential units would be owner-occupied (condominiums). Investing in a residential purchase in a primarily commercial area, the purchaser may be skeptical as to the resale value of such a unit. Moreover, the limited number of units that could be developed on any individual site would not provide prospective purchasers with the comfort level gained by having a more substantial number of other homeowners nearby. Furthermore, developers typically do not seek to build condominium developments with only a few units due to financial considerations. Conclusions Regarding Potential Marketability   Given the above, a mix of studio, one and a limited number of two-bedroom residential units within mixed use structures in the primarily commercial area (convenient to shops and services) and also within walking distance to the train station is considered to be viable for the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway area. Given the relatively small size of most of the lots in the study area, in addition to coverage and parking requirements, units would likely range in size from ±800 sf to ±1,100 sf (average 1,000 sf), and rent from $850 to $1400/month. 26 “Apartment market still strong, analysts say” ,Westchester County Business Journal, September 15, 2008 Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM – PARTS 1 AND 2 The Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for the Proposed Action, Parts 1 and 2, are attached in this section. This document is the first step in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process, and is designed to assist the Lead Agency (in this case, the Croton Village Board of Trustees) in determining whether the Proposed Action may have a significant effect on the environment. The EAF Part 1 contains project information, and EAF Part 2 contains a preliminary assessment of Project Impacts and their magnitude. The preceding EAF Part 3 report (Section II) includes more detail regarding potential areas of impact identified in EAF Part 2. Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. 617.20 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequently, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasurable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may not be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible enough to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and considering both the magnitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: G A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one, which will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. G B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* G C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment; therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. *A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Repeal and enactment of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Zoning Amendments Name of Action Croton-on-Hudson Village Board Name of Lead Agency ____________Abraham Zambrano_____________________ _Village Manager- Croton-on Hudson _ Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer ____________________________________________ ___________________ _____________ Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (if different from responsible officer) _______ __________ Date PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. Name of Action Repeal and enactment of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Zoning Amendments and expansion of overlay area Location of Action (include Street Address, Municipality and County) Portions of Croton Point Avenue and South Riverside currently in H/SRGD as well as expansion of existing Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District including commercial (C-2) lots on the east and west sides of South Riverside Avenue between Croton Point Avenue and a point 200 feet north of Oneida Avenue, Village of Croton-on-Hudson, County of Westchester. Name of Applicant/Sponsor Village Board of Trustees Business Telephone ( 914 ) 271-4848 Address Municipal Building, 1 Van Wyck St. City/PO Croton-on-Hudson State NY Zip Code Name of Owner (if different) (N/A) Business Telephone ( ) Address City/PO State Zip Code Description of Action Repeal and enactment of amendments to H/SRGD and related zoning law provisions and expansion of area included in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District (H/SRGD) portion of the Village Code. (See further description in EAF Part 3). Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. SITE DESCRIPTION Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use:
Urban G Industrial
Commercial
Residential G Rural (non-farm) G Forest G Agriculture
Other Office, retail, automotive related and service businesses 2. Total acreage of project area: ±11.7 * acres *(original gateway overlay and expansion area combined). APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) _0.0 acres _ 0.0 acres Forested 0.0 acres 0.0 acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) 0.0 acres 0.0 acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24,25 of ECL) 0.0 acres 0.0 acres Water Surface Area 0.0 acres 0.0 acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) 0.0 acres 0.0 acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces* ±11.7 * acres ±11.7 * acres Other (Indicate type) 0.0 acres 0.0 acres *includes small areas of landscaping, lawns, street trees, planted islands, etc. 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? UvB (Urban land -Riverhead complex)_______________________________ a. Soil drainage:
Well drained 100 % of site G Moderately well drained % of site G Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? N/A acres (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? G Yes
No a. What is depth to bedrock? 5 feet+ (in feet) 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes:
0-15% 95 %
15-25% 5 % G 25% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? G Yes
No* *None on H/SRGD site or substantially contiguous; but Van Cortlandt Manor, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a National Historic Landmark, is located in the vicinity of the H/SRGD with its entrance on South Riverside Avenue, approximately ±500 feet from Croton Point Avenue to the southeast. 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? G Yes
No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 6 feet+ (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? G Yes
No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? G Yes
No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? G Yes
No _____________________________________________________________________________________ 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) G Yes
No Describe ______________________________________________________________________________________ 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? G Yes
No If yes, explain ___________________________________________________________________________________ 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? G Yes
No* * It is noted that the Village is located in the Hudson Highlands scenic area of statewide significance and LWRP notes scenic views from South Riverside Drive. However, no significant vistas are apparent from the H/SRGD (See EAF Part 3 for site photos.) 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: None (surface drainage)_ a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary: _Hudson River to the west and Croton River to the east__________________________________________________ 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: ____none_______________________________________ a. Name _________ b. Size (In acres) ________________ 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities?
Yes G No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection?
Yes G No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? G Yes
No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? G Yes
No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? G Yes
No* *CEAs in the vicinity: Croton Point Park CEA, Hudson River CEA and County/State parkland CEA 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? G Yes
No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) *It is noted that the proposed action is a zoning amendment, not a construction project; therefore many responses are not applicable (N/A). a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor ±11.7* acres*(original gateway overlay and expansion area). b. Project acreage to be developed: N/A acres initially; N/A acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres. d. Length of project, in miles: N/A (if appropriate). e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A %. f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing N/A ; proposed _N/A__ . g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of project). h. If residential, Number and type of housing units: Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A ____________ Ultimately N/A ____________ i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure N/A height; N/A width; N/A length j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? _ N/A ___________ 2. How much natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? N/A . 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? G Yes G No
N/A a. If yes, for what intended purpose is the site being reclaimed? _____________________________ b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? G Yes G No c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? G Yes G No 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? N/A acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? G Yes
No 6. If single-phase project: Anticipated period of construction N/A months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated N/A (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? G Yes G No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? G Yes G No
N/A 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction? N/A ; after project is complete? N/A . 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project? N/A . 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? G Yes G No
N/A If yes, explain __ _____________________________________________________________________________ 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? G Yes G No
N/A a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount_______________________________________ b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ______________________________________________ 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? G Yes G No
N/A Type _______________________________ 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? G Yes
No Explain ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 15. Is project, or any portion of project, located in a 100-year flood plain? G Yes
No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? G Yes G No
N/A a. If yes, what is the amount per month? tons. b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? G Yes G No c. If yes, give name ___________________ ; location _________________________________________ d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? G Yes
No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? G Yes
No a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? G Yes G No
N/A 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? G Yes G No
N/A 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? G Yes G No
N/A 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? G Yes G No
N/A If yes, indicate type(s) ________________________________________________. 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity N/A gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? G Yes
No If yes, explain: __________________________ 25. Reviews and Approvals Required: Type Submittal Date Village Board
Yes G No zoning amendment____________________________________ Village Planning Board G Yes
No referral and review____________________________________ Village Zoning Board G Yes
No ___________________________________________________ County Health Department G Yes
No ___________________________________________________ Other Local Agencies G Yes
No Waterfront Advisory Comm.- consistency review for LWRP_____ Other Regional Agencies G Yes
No Westchester County Planning Board – referral_______________ State Agencies G Yes
No ________________________________________________ Federal Agencies G Yes
No _______________________________________________ C. ZONING AND PLANNING INFORMATION 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision?
Yes G No If Yes, indicate decision required:
zoning amendment G zoning variance G special use permit G subdivision G site plan G new/revision of master plan G resource management plan G other 2. What is the zoning classification(s) of the site? _ C-2 (General Commercial); southern portion of the area also has the overlay of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District _________________________ __________ 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? (see EAF Part 3)_______________________________________________________________________________________ 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? _Same (C-2): with Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District overlay expanded to entire area; and with proposed amendments to H/SRGD F.A.R. and other amendments______________________________ 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? _ (see EAF Part 3) ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans?
Yes G No 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? _Zoning: C-2, RA-5, RB (two family residence). Land Use: residential, vacant land, retail, office, personal service, fire house, auto-related uses, gas stations, restaurants, religious, ____________________________________________ 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile?
Yes G No 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? ____N/A_________ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? ____N/A_________________________________________________ 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? G Yes
No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? G Yes G No
TBD (See EAF Part 3) a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? G Yes G No
TBD 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? G Yes G No
TBD(See EAF Part 3) a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? G Yes G No
TBD D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are, or may be, any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. Date __July 15, 2010___ Signature Title _Vice President, Saccardi & Schiff, Inc, If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment Part 2 – PROJECT IMPACT AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) $ In completing the form, the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. $ The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and, wherever possible, the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. $ The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. $ The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. $ In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumulative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact c. If impacts threshold equals or exceeds any examples provided, check column 2. If impact will occur, but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an Impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in Part 3 to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact, then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This must be explained in Part 3. IMPACT ON LAND Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. G G G Yes G No • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. G G G Yes G No • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. G G G Yes G No • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. G G G Yes G No • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. G G G Yes G No • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. G G G Yes G No • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. G G G Yes G No • Construction in a designated floodway. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: ___________________________________ G G G Yes G No 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.) G Yes
No • Specific land forms: _____________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No IMPACT ON WATER Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. G G G Yes G No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. G G G Yes G No • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. G G G Yes G No • Construction in designated freshwater or tidal wetland. G G G Yes G No • Other Impacts: ________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No G G G Yes G No 4. Will proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? G Yes
No Examples that would apply in column 2 G G G Yes G No • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. G G G Yes G No • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: ________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ _ G G G Yes G No 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? G Yes G
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed (project) action. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons per minute pumping capacity. G G G Yes G No • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will adversely affect groundwater. G G G Yes G No • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do no exist or have inadequate capacity. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: ________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. G G G Yes G No Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: __________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? G Yes
No G G G Yes G No Examples that would apply to column 2 G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. G G G Yes G No • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU’s per hour. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site, or found on the site. G G G Yes G No • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. G G G Yes G No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? G Yes
No G G G Yes G No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. G G G Yes G No • • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over years of age) or other locally important vegetation. Other Impacts: ________________________________________________ G G G G Yes G No G Yes G No IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) G G G Yes G No Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of agricultural land. G G G Yes G No • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land or if located in an Agricultural District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. G G G Yes G No • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural land management systems (e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g., cause a farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff). G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: _____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No IMPACTS ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?
Yes G No (if necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from, or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. G G G YesG No • Proposed land use, or project components visible to users of aesthetic resources which will eliminate, or significantly reduce, their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. G G G YesG No • Project components that will result in the elimination, or significant screening, of scenic views known to be more important to the area. G G G Yes GNo • Other impacts: _The visual impacts of development under the proposed zoning amendments are expected to be positive to improve visual character of the village
G G YesG No IMPACTS ON HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. G G G YesG No • Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site. G G G YesG No • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. G G G YesG No • Other impacts: Harmon Real Estate office (not a designated historic resource) is within proposed expansion area. Proximity to Van Cortlandt Manor to H/SRGD separated by shopping center development
G G YesG No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. G G G YesG No • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. G G G YesG No • Other impacts: ___________________________________________________________ G G G YesG No IMPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change 14. Will Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established pursuant to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(g)? G Yes
No List the environmental characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action to locate within the CEA? G G G YesG No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quantity of the resource? G G G YesG No • Proposed Action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource? G G G YesG No • Proposed Action will impact the use, function or enjoyment of the resource? G G G YesG No • Other impacts: _________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ G G G Yes GNo IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems?
Yes G No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. G G G YesG No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. G G G YesG No • Other impacts: _Potential increase in traffic and parking due to development with implementation of zoning amendments ____________________________________
G G YesG No IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will the Proposed Action affect the community sources of fuel or energy supply? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) G G G Yes GNo • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. G G G Yes GNo • Other impacts: _________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ G G G Yes GNo If any action in Part 2 is identified as a potential large impact, or if you cannot determine the magnitude of impact, proceed to Part 3. NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS Small to Moderate Impact Potential Large Impact Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility G G G Yes G No • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: _ _____________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? G Yes
No Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action may result in the burial of “hazardous wastes” in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.). G G G Yes G No • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids. G G G Yes G No • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: _________________________________________________________ G G G Yes G No IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?
Yes G No Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than 5%. G G G Yes G No • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will conflict with officially adopted plan and goals. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will cause a change in the density of land use.
G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. G G G Yes G No • Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.).
G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. G G G Yes G No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. G G G Yes G No • Other impacts: ___Development with implementation of zoning amendments will encourage mixed use development and will increase population and fiscal impact to community, as well as increase tax revenues generated (See EAF Part 3).
G G Yes G No 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?
Yes G No Part 3 - EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of importance, consider: ! The probability of the impact occurring ! The duration of the impact ! Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value ! Whether the impact can or will be controlled ! The regional consequence of the impact ! Its potential divergence from local needs and goals ! Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) SEE EAF PART 3 REPORT Harmon/So. Riverside Gateway Overlay District Amendments EAF Part 3 Report (7/15/10)  V. COASTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (CROTON-ON-HUDSON) The Village of Croton-on-Hudson has a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), the limits of which include the entire village. The Proposed Action is subject to consistency review with the LWRP, as determined by the Village’s Waterfront Advisory Committee (WAC). Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. A. INSTRUCTIONS (Please print or type all answers) 1. Applicants, or in the case of direct actions (city, town, village) agencies, shall complete this CAF for proposed actions which are subject to the consistency review law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a (city, town, village) agency in making a determination of consistency. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the policies and explanations of policy contained in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), a copy of which is on file in the (city, town, village) clerk's office. A proposed action should be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area. 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. 1. Type of (city, town, village) agency action (check appropriate response): a) Directly undertaken (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) _ Repeal and enactment of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway (H/SRG) Overlay District Zoning Amendments _____________________ _ b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) ______________________________ c) Permit, approval, license, certification _____________________________________ d) Agency undertaking action _Croton-on-Hudson Village Board of Trustees ________ 2. Describe nature and extent of action: Repeal and enactment of amendments to H/SRG Overlay District and related zoning law provisions and expansion of area included in the Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District portion of the Village Code. Intent of the proposed amendments is to encourage commercial redevelopment and facilitate market rate mixed use development.___________________________________________________ 3. Location of actions: _ Area includes portions of Croton Point Avenue and South Riverside Avenue currently in H/SRGD as well as expansion of existing Harmon/South Riverside Gateway District including commercial (C-2) lots on the east and west sides of South Riverside Avenue between Croton Point Avenue and a point 200 feet north of Oneida Avenue, Village of Croton-on-Hudson, County of Westchester. 4. Size of site: __±11.7 acres________________________________________________ 5. Present land use: _Office, auto-related uses, retail, service businesses, restaurants,_ residential, vacant lands _______________________________________________ 6. Present zoning classification: __C-2 (General Commercial) and Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District on southern portion of area _____________________________ 7. List and describe any unique or unusual land forms within or contiguous to the project site (i.e. bluffs, dunes, swales, ground depressions, other geological formations: None_____________________________________________________________________ 8. Percent of site which contains slopes of 15% or greater: _±5%_____________________ 9. List and describe streams, lakes, ponds or wetlands existing within or contiguous to the project area. Give name and size of each if available: a) Name: ______None_________________________________________________ b) Size (in acres): _N/A________________________________________________ 10. If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the (city, town, village) a) Name of applicant: _____N/A _______________________________________ b) c) d) 11. Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding or approval by a state or federal agency? NO __X_____ YES ______ If yes, which state or federal agency?___________________________ C. COASTAL ASSESSMENT: (Check either "yes" or "no" for each of the following questions) YES NO 1. Will the proposed action be located in, or contiguous to, or have a potentially adverse effect upon any of the resource areas identified on the coastal area map: _____ __X___ a) Significant fish or wildlife habitats? _____ __X___ b) Scenic resources of local or statewide significance? _____ __ X*_ *see EAF Part 3 report c) Important agricultural lands? _____ __X___ d) Natural protective features in an erosion hazard area? _____ __X___ If the answer to any question above is "yes", please explain in Section D any measures which will be undertaken to mitigate any adverse effects. YES NO 2. Will the proposed action have a significant effect upon: a) Commercial or recreational use of fish and wildlife resources? _____ _X____ b) Scenic quality of the coastal environment? __ __ _ X*__ *see EAF Part 3 report c) Development of future or existing water dependent uses? _____ _X____ d) Operation of the State's major ports? _____ _X____ e) Land or water uses within a small harbor area? _____ _X____ f) Stability of the shoreline? _____ _X____ g) Surface or groundwater quality? _____ _X____ h) Existing or potential public recreation opportunities? _____ _X____ i) Structures, sites or districts of historic, archeological or cultural significance to the (city, town, village), State or nation? ____ _ X*__ *see EAF Part 3 report 3. Will the proposed action involve or result in any of the following: a) Physical alteration of land along the shoreline, land under water or coastal waters? _____ __X___ b) Physical alteration of two (2) acres or more of land located elsewhere in the coastal area? _____ _X____ c) Expansion of existing public services or infrastructure in undeveloped or low density areas of the coastal area? _____ _X____ d) Energy facility not subject to Article VII or VIII of the Public Service Law? _____ _X____ e) Mining, excavation, filling or dredging in coastal waters? _____ _X____ f) Reduction of existing or potential public access to or along the shore? _____ _X____ g) Sale or change in use of publicly-owned lands located on shoreline or under water? _____ _X____ h) Development within a designated flood or erosion hazard area? _____ _X____ i) Development on a beach, dune, barrier island or other natural feature that provides protection against flooding or erosion? _____ _X____ j) Construction or reconstruction of erosion protective structures? _____ _X____ k) Diminished surface or groundwater quality? _____ _X____ l) Removal of ground cover from the site? _____ _X____ YES NO 4. Project (N/A-zoning amendment, not project) a) If project is to be located adjacent to shore: (N/A-not adjacent to shore) _____ _____ 2. Will public access to the foreshore be provided? _____ _____ 3. Does the project require a waterfront site? _____ _____ 4. Does it supplant a recreational or maritime use? _____ _____ 5. Do essential public services and facilities presently exist at or near the site? _____ _ ___ 6. Is it located in a flood prone area? _____ _____ 7. Is it located in an area of high erosion? _____ _____ b) If the project site is publicly owned: (N/A-all privately owned) 1. Will the project protect, maintain and/or increase the level and types of public access to water-related recreation resources and facilities? _____ _____ 2. If located in the foreshore, will access to those and adjacent lands be provided? _____ _____ 3. Will it involve the siting and construction of major energy facilities? _____ ____ 4. Will it involve the discharge of effluent from major steam electric generating and industrial facilities into coastal facilities? _____ _____ c) Is the project site presently used by the community neighborhood an open space or recreation area? _____ __X___ d) Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? _____ _ X__ e) Is the project site presently used for commercial fishing or fish processing? _____ __X___ f) Will the surface area of any waterways or wetland area be increased or decreased by the proposals? _____ _X____ g) Does any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally important vegetation exist on this site which will be removed by the project? _____ _X____ h) Will the project involve any waste discharges into coastal waters? _____ _X____ i) Does the project involve surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal? _____ __X___ j) Does the project involve transport, storage, treatment or disposal of solid waste or hazardous materials? _____ _X____ YES NO k) Does the project involve shipment or storage of petroleum products? _____ _X____ l) Does the project involve discharge of toxic hazardous substances or other pollutants into coastal waters? _____ __X___ m) Does the project involve or change existing ice management practices? _____ _X____ n) Will the project affect any area designated as a tidal or freshwater wetland? _____ __X___ o) Will the project alter drainage flow, patterns or surface water runoff on or from the site? _____ __X___ p) Will best management practices be utilized to control storm water runoff into coastal waters? _____ _X____ q) Will the project utilize or affect the quality or quantity of sole source or surface water supplies? _____ __X___ r) Will the project cause emissions which exceed federal or state air quality standards or generate significant amounts of nitrates or sulfates? _____ _X___ D. REMARKS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. For questions answered “yes” in Section C, explain methods you will undertake to reduce adverse effects. Review the LWRP to see if the project is consistent with each policy. List policies the project is not consistent with and explain all mitigating actions. (Add any additional sheets necessary to complete this form) See EAF Part 3 Report for details on description of proposed action and potential impacts. The final version of this form shall be sent to the Department of State (New York State Dept. of State, Coastal Management Program, 162 Washington Avenue, Albany, NY 12231) if any question in Section C is answered “yes” and either of the following conditions is met. • Section B.1 (a) or B.1 (b) is checked OR • Section B.1 (c) and B.11 is answered “yes” If assistance or further information is needed to complete this form, please contact the Village Engineer at (914) 271-4783. Preparer’s Name: _Bonnie Von Ohlsen____________________________________ Title: _Vice President__________________________________________________ Agency: _Saccardi & Schiff, Inc., Planning Consultants for Village of Croton-on-Hudson____ Telephone No.: (914)761-3582__ E-mail: _bvonohlsen@saccschiff.com_____________ Date: __July 15, 2010____________ APPENDIX APPENDIX A: Draft Local Law Introductory No. 3-2010 and List of Parcels APPENDIX B: Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations, Harmon Business Development Committee (August 26, 2008) PRESENTATION TO BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK BY HARMON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Related Studies: Property Utilization Analysis, Saccardi & Schiff, Inc. (July 2008, 17 pages) The Croton-on-Hudson Harmon Commercial District Retail Study, Danth, Inc, (July 2008, 18 pages) HARMON ZONING CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS August 26, 2008 Contents Executive Summary Background Process and Rationale Some Useful Definitions Property Utilization Analysis Results Return on Investment Modeling Results How can we affect positive change in Harmon? Zoning Change Recommendations Geographic Scope Represents a Gateway Expansion Determining Commercial Needs Commercial Feasibility Study Findings Planning Consultant Findings Impacts on the Neighborhood, Taxes, and Infrastructure Next Steps Village Board Decision on Recommendations Zoning Law Change Process District Marketing Campaign Approval Process Streamlining Appendix 1: Final Harmon Zoning Recommendations Appendix 2: List of Affected Parcels Appendix 3: Study Area Map Appendix 4: Village Code Summary Table List of Figures Executive Summary: Table of Final Harmon Zoning Recommendations Figure 1: Property Utilization Analysis: Nappy Lot Figure 2: Property Utilization Analysis: Dodge Lot Figure 3: Return on Investment Model: Nappy Lot Figure 4: The 3 Story Footprint yields More Parking; Nappy and Dodge Lots Figure 5: Rear Parking in Harmon: A Design Strategy Illustration Figure 6: Losing Driveways to Gain Space: An Illustration Figure 7: Impact on Real Estate Taxes Figure 8: A New Rear Parking Lot H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 14, 2008, the committee made a formal presentation to the Village and public at a Work Session of the Board of Trustees. This written report, the Harmon Zoning Change Recommendations, summarizes all the material presented that evening and other information the committee felt may be helpful as the community deliberates the proposed changes. The changes are summarized in a table on the next page. Current underlying General Commercial C-2 District regulations in Croton-on-Hudson allow a maximum building floor area to parcel area ratio of 0.5 with a maximum of two stories. Parcels in the C-2 Gateway Overlay are zoned for lower density than the non-Gateway parcels. Gateway regulations limit parcels to a maximum allowed floor to area ratios (FAR) to 0.35 for single use buildings and 0.40 for multiple use buildings. Mixed occupancy anywhere in the village’s commercial zones requires a special permit, i.e. anywhere in the Central Commercial C-1 or General Commercial C-2 District whether or not a parcels lies with a Gateway Overlay zone. (See Village Mixed Occupancy Code (§ 230-42.1.).) The Harmon Business Development Committee recommends removing the special permit threshold and allowing mixed use of commercial ground floors with residential above as of right within the Harmon Gateway area. The committee recommends expansion of the Harmon Gateway from its current roster of 14 parcels to include the 22 parcels that form the core of the business district between Croton Point Avenue and 200 feet past Oneida on South Riverside Avenue. Further, the committee recommends a suite of new regulations that would allow a higher maximum floor to area ratio of 0.80 and up to 3 story buildings of which the two upper stories must be residential, provided the proposed building meets all of the following conditions. The increase of FAR to 0.80 and allowing a third story for residential use would only be available to developments whose site plans meet all the other planks in the zoning change recommendations. The property would have to lie within the expanded Harmon Gateway. It would have to adhere to all the existing code requirements for maximum height (35 feet) and rear and side setbacks, and screening. It would have to demonstrate it could accommodate all the needed parking requirements of the new regulations. It would have to house a minimum of 50% of 1st floor as commercial tenant space and this commercial space must face the street. It would have to meet a maximum setback from curb (or lot line) 15 to 20 feet. It would have to demonstrate all new street level space fronting on the sidewalk have at least 60% of the street facades be window (glass). H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF FINAL HARMON ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS These 9 recommendations form a set of interlocking, mutually reinforcing code conditions to stimulate better development in the Harmon study area. Shift Mixed Occupancy Use to Permitted as of right Use in the Gateway Overlay Zone: 1. Remove the requirement for a special use permit for parcel developments that meet ALL of the requirements below. • The goal is lowering the barriers to entry for development that comply with all of the pedestrian- friendly neighborhood shopping district requirements below. Geographic Scope for the Zoning Changes: 2. Expand the existing Gateway Overlay Zone to include all the parcels facing South Riverside from Croton Point Avenue to approximately 200 ft past Oneida. (See Appendix 2 for a list of parcels). • The goal is simultaneously unifying the code for similar parcels while introducing as simple an update to the code adoption as possible. The Following Conditions will Apply ONLY to Mixed Occupancy Uses Located in the Gateway Overlay Zone: 3. Increase maximum allowable Floor to Area (FAR) from current values to a uniform 0.8 value. 4. Allow a third story within roofline for residential use only. 5. Leave the maximum building height in current code at 35 feet. 6. Require 2 parking spaces per residential unit and allow, 1 of 2 residential spaces to count toward commercial parking requirements in the existing base code. 7. Require that a minimum of 50% of 1st floor be commercial and that the commercial space must face the street. • The goal is a coordinated, flexible set of use parameters that work well in conjunction with each other, while protecting the village from negative impacts. Sidewalk Design Standards to Maximize Visual Appeal and Pedestrian Experience: 8. Establish a maximum setback from curb (or lot line) 15 to 20 feet: New buildings will be nearer to the curb, while allowing for ample sidewalk width for pedestrians, plantings and sidewalk cafe arrangements. • The goal is no fewer than 15 feet of depth between the building and the curb and no more than 20 feet. 9. Require all new street level space fronting on the sidewalk to have at least 60% of their facades covered by glass. • The goal is to maximize visibility for first floor commercial tenants, with 60% glass area as a well- established minimum , and for the district to be read as retail orientied. H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons BACKGROUND In the early summer of 2007, a group of local residents with different professional backgrounds in property planning, development and village affairs began to meet. The members of the group shared a common concern about the number of “for rent” and “for sale” signs in Harmon business district in the Village of Croton-on-Hudson, New York. The underlying question for the group was whether any proactive steps could be taken by the village to attract good, new businesses to the district. The land in the district is primarily in private hands, with the exception of the Harmon Firehouse. So any incentives would have to combine the levers of the marketplace with those of the village. By the fall of 2007 after several formal and informal input meetings with business owners and neighbors, the committee had hammered out sufficient ideas to present to the Village Board of Trustees. After screening resumes of potential members, the Village formalized the group as the Harmon Business Development Committee and appointed its members officially as an ad hoc committee. By December 2007, the committee had arrived at preliminary recommendations that centered around making the zoning for the Riverside parcels more flexible for potential developers. At the same time, the committee recognized the need to have a professional planner independently audit the committee’s findings for any weaknesses, errors, or gaps. The committee also recommended the area be studied by a professional planner to determine the feasibility of whether or not any unmet demand for commercial space existed in Harmon. By January 2008, the Village authorized a request-for-proposal process to secure these two studies at competitive costs from experienced consultants. Two different planning firms were selected based on multiple proposals submitted, one for each of the two tasks. By early July 2008, the two studies were finalized and forwarded to the committee. These studies both independently endorse the package of zoning changes the committee had drafted. Based on the data in these studies, the committee prepared this presentation for the public and Village Board of Trustees. This presentation consists of three main parts: Process and Rationale; Zoning Change Recommendations; and Next Steps. This report represents the work of the members of the Harmon Business Development Committee over the past year. This presentation opens with a description of the process the committee used and the rationale behind that analysis. This focus allowed us to examine what conditions might encourage or discourage a property owner from investing in a commercial lot in Harmon. In essence, we wanted to test the hypothesis that the existing zoning is “too restrictive.” Can the current code, amended in 2001, 2004, and 2005 by the village, be amended again to gain more flexibility for property owners and more benefits to the community? H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons PROCESS AND RATIONALE The overarching premise the committee kept foremost in mind is that any changes in Harmon be good for the entire Village. Specifically, the committee rejected any potential changes that might erode other village business districts, might degrade adjacent residential areas, and weaken pedestrian safety. The committee specifically focused on ideas that might boost the overall synergies of local business areas, enhance pedestrian experience, confine parking impacts to the business district, and create high quality building stock to increase property tax revenues permanently. A more attractive Harmon is a better draw for the rest of the village, especially the tens of thousands of visitors each year who use the Route 9 exit at Croton Point Avenue for special events at Van Cortlandt Manor or Croton Point Park. Successful business districts increases the dollars that stay in the local economy. The committee members represented quite diverse points of view and relevant areas of expertise. The committee did find common ground early on about the questions it wanted to study about the the Harmon commercial district. Why were so few commercial properties being expanded or being upgraded? Why were so many lots increasingly vacant or underused? Some Useful Definitions Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) is defined as the building’s entire habitable floor area divided by the surface area of the entire parcel. For example, a 400 square foot building on a 1,000 square foot lot exhibits a 0.4 FAR. Maximum FAR values are commonly set to provide an upper limit on the bulk of a building in scale with its lot. Floor-to-area ratios are used in the village to place maximum bulk on building size. This is calculated by dividing the total sum of the lot by the floor area of the buildings. Current maximum FAR values in the village’s zoning code range from 2.0 in the C-1 zone to 0.15 in the RA-40 zone (large residential lots with 40,000 minimum square feet). Actual as-built FAR values for the 36 parcels in the Harmon study area vary widely. For parcels in a General Commercial C-2 District, the maximum allowable FAR value is currently 0.5 (e.g. the former Dodge lot is one of these). For parcels in the Gateway overlay within the C-2 zone in Harmon (e.g. the Nappy garage lot is one of these), the current FAR is 0.4 if the project involves mixed uses of commercial and residential, and 0.35 if the project involves a single use (commercial only). For parcels in the Upper Village’s Central C-1 Commercial 1 zone, the current maximum FAR value is 2.0. There, in other words, a building may be currently be built that has twice the area of the entire lot. The size and location of buildings are also regulated by minimum or maximum setbacks between the building and outside edge or the parcel and maximum facade heights. The current state of “eclectic scruffiness” in the words of one long time resident and building professional in Croton stems from a rather organic and loose application of standards over the course of the twentieth century. Since 2001, as part of H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons adopting the Comprehensive Plan principles, the village has applied the principle of using floor to area ratios–to control building mass in scale with overall parcel size– to all the zones in the code, both commercial and residential. The experience in the village is fewer than 10 years old and has been applied most frequently to housing parcels to put a ceiling of the size of a McMansion that might be built and avoid new homes that tower over older homes next door. However, because so few commercial parcels have applied for extensive renovations of late, the FAR principle has as of yet not had an effect on the non- residential areas of the village. Parking minimums are determined differently for commercial space than for residential units. For commercial building space, the current code requires one parking space per 250 square feet of commercial retail space and one space for 300 square feet of commercial office space. This reflects the reality that most retail businesses have higher parking turn over among patrons than office businesses do. For residential units, the current code requires two parking spaces per unit. This reflects the reality of two-car households in the region. Open space requirements in the current code call for reserving 15% of the parcel “in its natural state or appropriately landscaped and open the air” in order “to enhance the appearance of the gateway areas and contribute to Croton’s open space character.“ [Village Code §230-20.5] Mixed-use buildings are quite common as grandfathered uses in parcels in Croton’s Upper Village and elsewhere. Mixed use simply means a building that houses more than one principal use. The existing definition in Village Code of mixed occupancy is “ a building which has nonresidential use of the street level and residential use of another level or levels.” Mixed occupancy use is not allowed as of right in the village at present. The most common form of mixed use in Croton is a ground floor devoted to retail, office, or studio space, with residential units on the floors above. Currently, mixed-use buildings are prohibited in the village’s commercial zones and only allowed in the Gateway overlay zone in three commercial districts by special permit of the Village Board of Trustees. Most of Croton’s buildings that house mixed uses now are both grandfathered in the code and long predate modern parking space minimums. In other words, the mixed-use buildings in the Upper Village have high floor to area ratios, but entirely too little on site parking, because they date from the late 19th or early 20th century. The committee’s recommendations will require mixed use buildings to meet much higher parking standards than is the case now in the Upper Village. [Village Code § 230-42.1.] Property Utilization Analysis is a common approach to determine under the extant zoning conditions how much of an actual parcel could be used by the owner to generate income (salable or rentable space). A property utilization analysis determines the amount (as a percent) of the parcel that is usable for construction after the current zoning regulations are enforced. The main zoning regulations that affect how much of the parcel may as-of-right be developed include the maximum floor-to-area ratio (FAR), mandated on-site parking spaces, and open space requirements. H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons Property Utilization Analysis Results The committee applied this mathematical exercise to a number of parcels in the district, including the two which straddle the key intersection of South Riverside Drive and Benedict Boulevard, the aforementioned Nappy lot and former Dodge lot. A casual observer might assume that the maximum area of the lot that could be built on would the the total lot area minus the set aside of 15% for open space, or 85% of the lot size. This analysis for the Nappy lot showed that the percent of the land that the owner could actually develop for building and parking was not more than 47%with the as of right permitted use a single use commercial building. It was only 45% for the mixed use that currently requires the significant step of securing a special use permit. (See Figure 1) Next the committee asked what value of FAR would such a parcel achieve higher property utilization without changing the current maximum building height or reducing the minimum parking requirements. The 35-foot maximum building height was well established in the code and was tall enough to allow for a third floor under the dormers of a roof. Indeed, the largest mixed use building in this district is a three-story 35 feet tall structure in which the second and third floors are residential and the ground floor is commercial/office space. (See Figure 1 a & b.) Single versus Mixed Use Caveat One big caveat is needed. The mixed occupancy of commercial and residential uses upon which the calculations are based assume the property owner succeeds in obtaining a special permit from the village to construct such a project. Mixed use projects are only possible by special permit within the Gateway Overlay district that itself encompasses only a small section of the overall C-2 zones in the village. Mixed use is not available by special permit or as-of-right in any C-2 parcels outside the designated Gateway area. Why did the committee begin by analyzing a mixed use scenario, rather than a single as-of-right commercial use? We did analyze the impact of maximizing commercial use for lots both in the Gateway (e.g. Nappy) and outside the Gateway (e.g. Dodge) and found weak property utilization results that was only slightly stronger than for a mixed use on the same lot at the current FAR and 2 story limitations: A 2 story commercial use on the Nappy parcel at the maximum applicable FAR of 0.35 yields uses only 47% of the parcel. A 2 story mixed use on the Nappy parcel at the maximum applicable FAR of 0.4 yields uses only 45% of the parcel. A 2 story commercial use on the Dodge parcel at the maximum applicable FAR of 0.5 yields uses only 45% of the parcel. A 2 story mixed use on the Dodge parcel at the maximum applicable FAR of 0.5 yields uses only 38% of the parcel. Clearly, an owner could convert any portion of a parcel not used for the building footprint, parking, and required open space as a location for extra parking or plantings. All the recent proposals for redeveloping parcels on South Riverside that came the committee’s attention included first floor commercial and at least one ––and in some cases three–“upstairs” residential floors above street level. The committee wondered why developers were proposing these higher density mixed use concepts, even though mixed use requires the considerable expense of first obtaining a special use permit from the village. H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons FIGURE 1A: PROPERTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS: NAPPY LOT AT CURRENT F.A.R. A mixed use project on Nappy lot at current FAR of 0.4 shows weak utilization of only 45% of the parcel. A single commercial use at current applicable 0.35 FAR shows weak utilization of 47%. (Note. “Footprint” is the size of the foundation of the building and hence the area of the each floor.) Nappy .4 FAR (2 stories) Mixed Use (special permit required) Property Utilization Calculation Sq Ft Lot Size Open Space Requirements 11875*.15 (1781) Projected Usable Lot Space 10,094.00 85% Lot Size Footprint (11875*.4)/2 (2375) Parking 9 Commercial Parking Spots ((2375/275)*162 sq ft) (1458) 6 Residential Parking Spots (3*2) (972) Open Space Requirements 11875*.15 (1781) Actual Usable Lot Space 5,289.00 45% Total Area of Building 11875*.4 4,750 Nappy .35 FAR (2 stories) Commercial Only (as of right) Property Utilization Calculation Sq Ft Lot Size 11,875 Open Space Requirements 11875*.15 (1,781) Projected Usable Lot Space 10,094 85% Lot Size 11,875 Footprint (11875*.35)/2 (2,078) Parking 15 Commercial Parking Spots ((2078*2 floors/275 sf/ spot)*162 sf) (2,448) 0 Residential Parking Spots Open Space Requirements 11875*.15 (1,781) Actual Usable Lot Space 5,567 47% Total Area of Building 11875*.35 4,156 FIGURE 1B: PROPERTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS: NAPPY LOT AT NEW F.A.R. A mixed use project on Nappy lot Nappy lot at new FAR of 0.8 shows better utilization at 79%. Nappy .8 FAR (3 stories) Mixed Use (special permit required now) Property Utilization Calculation Sq Ft Lot Size 11875.00 Open Space Requirements 11875*.15 (1781.00) Projected Usable Lot Space 10,094.00 85% Lot Size 11875.00 Footprint (11875*.8)/3 (3,166.67) Parking 12 Commercial Parking Spots ((3167/275)*162 sq ft) (1,399.09) 16 Residential Parking Spots (8*2) (2592.00) Open Space Requirements 11875*.15 (1781) Actual Usable Lot Space 6,586.00 79% Total Area of Building 11875*.8 9,500 After trying many different FAR values (0.55, 0.6, 0.7, etc), the committee found that a maximum FAR of 0.8 H a r m o n B u s i n e s s D e v e l o p m e n t C o m m i t t e e (July 2008) Zoni ng C hange R ecom m endat i ons FIGURE 2A: PROPERTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS: DODGE LOT AT CURRENT F.A.R. A mixed use project on Dodge lot at applicable FAR of 0.5 utilizes only 38% of the parcel. A single commercial use at current applicable 0.5 FAR shows weak utilization of 457%. Dodge Lot .5 FAR (2 story max) Mixed Use ( special permit required now) Property Utilization Calculation Sq Ft Lot Size 16,675 Open Space Requirements 16675*.15 (2,501) Projected Usable Lot Space 14,174 85% Lot Size 16,675 Footprint (16675*.5)/2 (4,169) Parking 15 Comm. Parking Spots ((4169/275 sqft/spot)*162 sqft) (2,456) 8 Residential Parking Spots (4*2) (1,296) Open Space Requirements 16675*.15 (2,501) Actual Usable Lot Space 6,253 38% Total Area of Building 16675*.5 8,338 Dodge Lot .5 FAR (2 story max) Commercial Only (as of right) Property Utilization Calculation Sq Ft Lot Size 16,675 Open Space Requirements 16675*.15 (2,501) Projected Usable Lot Space 14,174 85% Lot Size 16,675 Footprint (16675*.5)/2 (4,169) Parking 30 Commercial Parking Spots ((4168*2floors)/275 sf/ spot)*162 sf)) (2,456) 0 Residential Parking Spots Open Space Requirements 16675*.15 (2,501) Actual Usable Lot Space 7,549 45% Total Area of Building 16675*.5 8,338 FIGURE 2B: PROPERTY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS: DODGE LOT AT NEW F.A.R. A mixed use project on Dodge lot at new FAR of 0.8 improves to 81% utilization of the parcel. Dodge Lot .8 FAR (3 story max) Mixed Use (special permit required now) Property Utilization Calculation Sq Ft Lot Size 16,675 Open Space Requirements 16675*.15 (2,501) Projected Usable Lot Space 14,174 85% Lot Size 16,675 Footprint (16675*.8)/3 (4,447) Parking 16 Commercial Parking Spots ((4447/275)*162 sq ft) (2,456) 24 Residential Parking Spots (12*2) (3,888) Open Space Requirements 16675*.15 (2,501) Actual Usable Lot Space 10,422 81% Total Area of Building 16675*.8 13,340 was optimal in that it achieved much higher property utilization for this kind of parcel without reducing space available for parking or increasing building height–79% utilization in this case. Hence the property owner would have a building with 800 more square feet of rentable space. However, under the current parking code the number of parking spaces jumped from 15 at FAR 0.4 to 28 at FAR 0.8. Of course, the current zoning code assumes a single use building,not a building whose occupants would represent different uses (working versus living) and different time tables for when parking would be needed. When the committee subjected the Dodge lot to the same analysis, a similar pattern emerged. For the extant zoning conditions, the Dodge lot–if redeveloped–could only use 45% of its surface area. At the same higher FAR that produced such good results for Nappy’s lot, the Dodge lot was now 81% utilized. And the higher FAR would mean the owner would have 1,112 square feet of income-producing space. (See Figure 2 a & b.) Return on Investment Modeling Results Having established that building floor area could be expanded without harmful parking impacts to the neighboring residential streets, the next questions the committee studied were financial. Is a financially viable to redevelop parcels under the existing code with 2008 prices for construction or income? Hence the committee applied a common return on investment (ROI) analysis to numerous parcels with two conditions to determine building size and income potential: (1) the current zoning conditions for FAR, parking, open space, etc, and (2) a mixed use of a commercial ground floor topped with a residential second floor. The committee used very conservative assumptions about financial factors including: (1) new construction costs of $150/sf; (2) $24/sf rent income for commercial space; (3) $900/month rent income for 1 bedroom apartments; (4) a 15% vacancy rate used by commercial lenders to discount rental income; (5) a “purchase” price for the land as 1/3 of the total project construction costs. The committee recognizes that construction costs would likely be higher, that rents would likely be higher, that vac [...truncated...]