Documents

environmental 9 pages

Also attached to this agenda item: DRAFT FEAF PART II - 1 Croton Point Ave Incomplete Draft Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report Environmental Noise Study and Facade Glazing... Insite Preliminary Wastewater Engineering Report dated... Insite Preliminary Water Engineering Report dated July... Insite Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan dated July... Insite engineering and landscape architecture plans... LWRP Lot A - Last Revised 10.16.24 Letter from NYSDOT consenting to the Board of Trustees... Letter from the Division for Historic Preservation... Memorandum by Longman Lindsey dated September 10%2C 2024 Memorandum from AKRF%2C Inc. re%3A 1 Croton Point...

kimley-horn.com 1 North Lexington Avenue, Suite 505, White Plains, NY 10601 914-368-9200 September 16, 2024 Mr. John R. Bainlardi, Vice President WBP Development LLC 480 Bedford Road, Chappaqua, NY 10514 Re: Referral from the Village Board of Trustees to review a Special Permit Application From WPB Development LLC to construct a 100-unit residential building located at 1-3 Croton Point Avenue and Parking Lot A (79.17-1-3,4,5 Dear Mr. Bainlardi, Below are Kimley-Horn’s responses to traffic and parking comments on the above application provided by the Robert Luntz, Chairman of the Village Planning Board, in an August 2024 memorandum to the Village Board of Trustees. Comment C1. The Planning Board recommends a more in-depth traffic study be conducted. Response: A more in-depth traffic study is currently being conducted and will be submitted as soon as it is completed. Comment C2. The Planning Board would like to hear how commuter traffic would be mitigated during construction. Response: During constriction, all construction traffic will be out of the traveled way and will not obstruct traffic. Any temporary lane closures required will be scheduled outside of the peak commuter hours, as will be deliveries made by the largest vehicles (tractor trailers) Comment C 3. The Planning Board is concerned about the impact of the increase in traffic and questioned if 103 parking spots is sufficient for resident parking for the proposed 100 residential units. The proposed 103 parking spots may not be sufficient for the residents. While it's hoped that this being a Transit Oriented Zone would offset the needs of residents having two cars, it may not be a realistic expectation. Therefore, a development with only 80 or preferably 60 units would be better serviced with only 103 parking spaces. It would be good to know how other TOD developments have handled parking requirements. There are plenty of examples on the Hudson line that could be contacted for information about what parking ratios they are using and how it is working out. It is recommended that the applicant provide this type of information. Response: The latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation Manual indicates that the proposed 100 units will generate a peak parking demand of 100 vehicles (see attached), 5 fewer than the 105 spaces proposed. This projection does not take any credit for the fact that this development is within easy walking distance of an excellent train service, a supermarket, a popular park and a considerable portion of the Village’s commercial district. kimley-horn.com 1 North Lexington Avenue, Suite 505, White Plains, NY 10601 914 368 9200 Attached with this report are parking studies for three multi-family developments located next to the Water in the City of Yonkers which generate an average of 0.95 parked cars per occupied unit. Thus, based on this data, if all 100 units are occupied, the project will generate a maximum of 95 parked vehicles, 10 fewer than the 105 spaces proposed. Also attached is a parking study for a multi-family development located on the edge of the City of White Plains’ downtown, slightly less than a half mile from the train station, which generate an average of 0.87 parked cars per occupied unit. Thus, based on this data, if all 100 units are occupied, the project will generate a maximum of 87 parked vehicles, 18 fewer than the 105 spaces proposed. Comment C 4. It is recommended that the traffic impacts be analyzed further. Impacts to people coming and going to the train station, employees at Metro North, visitors to Croton Point Park and residents of Half Moon Bay need to be analyzed. Response: The traffic impacts to people coming and going to the train station, employees at Metro North, visitors to Croton Point Park and residents of Half Moon Bay will be evaluated in the in-dept traffic study that is being prepared, as noted on response 1. Comment C 5. If the current trend continues of people returning to more robust usage of train station parking/commuting, ample parking to support those cars may not be available. Response: Parcel 50, on the Project site, is currently operated by the Village as a parking lot for MNR Croton-Harmon station (commonly referred to as the “parking lot A” or the “north lot”). As indicated on Page 6 of the FEAF Supplemental Narrative, prepared by AKRF for the rezoning of the property, future development of Parcel 50 would reduce the total capacity of Village-owned commuter lots to 2,081 spaces (a reduction of 122 spaces). This loss was offset by the addition of 188 parking spaces in the commuter parking lots south of Croton Point Avenue from the recently completed demolition of the Village’s Department of Public Works (DPW) facility and the reconfiguration of parking just to the north thereof. The EAF concluded that post-pandemic commuter parking “could be easily accommodated in the 2,081-space south lot”. Comment C 6. The Planning Board recommends that the application be reviewed by the Croton Harmon School District with respect to a future school bus stop. Response: The Applicant will submit the application to the Croton Harmon School District for their review with respect to a future school bus stop. Please contact me if you have any questions. KIMLEY-HORN Engineering and Landscape Architecture of New York, P.C. By: John Canning, P.E. Associate HUDSON PARK PHASE 3 PARKING STUDY YONKERS, NY   July 10, 2012 Hudson Park Phase 3 Parking Study Yonkers, NY Prepared on behalf of: Collins Enterprises, LLC 2001 West Main Street, Suite 175 Stamford, CT 06902 Prepared by: BFJ Planning 115 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 (212) 353-7474 www.bfjplanning.com July 10, 2012 1. Introduction The main purpose of this report is to estimate the additional parking demand generated by the third Phase of the Hudson Park residential development on the Yonkers waterfront. This residential development is unique in that it is immediately adjacent to a busy train station and it is in a downtown area. The third phase of this development consists of a total of 222 apartments, broken down as follows: 54 studio apartments 84 1-bedroom apartments 42 1-bedroom + den apartments 42 2-bedroom apartments 2. Results of Updated Occupancy Survey of Existing Apartments and Garages Hudson Park consists of residential apartments that expand over three buildings, The North River building (1 Alexander St.), The Phoenix building (1 Van Der Donck St.) and The Clermont building (1 Pier Pointe St.). BFJ analyzed the detailed lists of apartments currently occupied in the three existing buildings, together with the information of the number of parking spaces leased by each occupied apartment. The following shows the number of apartments by building (total and occupied) and by size of apartments: The Clermont  The Phoenix  The North River  Total  Garage  F  E  C  F/E/C  Apartment Info   Number  %  Number  %  Number  %  Number  %  Total # of Apts     # of Vacant Apts  10.0%  6.3%  3.4%  5.7%  # of Occupied Apts  90.0%  93.7%  96.6%  94.3%  1 Bedroom  57.1%  55.9%  39.1%  47.2%  1 Bedroom + Den  7.9%  22.0%  15.8%  15.3%  2 Bedroom  34.9%  18.6%  25.0%  25.9%  2 Bedroom + Den  0.0%  3.4%  20.1%  11.6%  It can be seen that the three existing buildings are practically filled to capacity (average of 94% occupancy). 62.5 % of the apartments are 1-bedroom apartments and 37.5% are 2-bedroom apartments. Three 3-AM parking occupancy surveys were undertaken in each building to determine the peak parking demand. One of these was undertaken by BFJ staff and the other two were surveyed by Hudson Park security staff (see Appendix B). The following shows the results of these counts: The Clermont  The Phoenix  The North River  Total  Garage  F  E  C  F/E/C  Capacity & Allocated Spaces  Number  %  Number  %  Number  %  Number  %  Spaces Supplied    Allocated Spaces  90%  78%  94%  89%  Non‐allocated Spaces  10%  22%  6%  11%  Allocated Spaces/      Occupied Apt  0.97  1.12  1.12  1.08  Demand  Max Occupancy Count (3AM)  % of Allocated Spaces  91%  95%  84%  88%  Car Presence per Occupied  Apartment  0.88  1.07  0.94  0.95  Min. Vacant Spaces (3AM)  The analysis of assigned (leased) parking spaces showed that on average 1-bedroom apartments (and 1+bedrooms) had 0.93 parking spaces assigned per apartment, and 2-bedroom apartments (and 2+bedrooms) had 1.31 spaces assigned. The details of this analysis can be found in Appendix A. The occupancy counts also showed that on average only 88% of the leased spaces were occupied. This percentage varied from 84% to 95%, depending on the building. It can also be seen that each building still had a certain number of parking spaces that were not leased. For garage E (The Phoenix) only 78% of the spaces were allocated, whereas 94% of the apartments were occupied. If this apartment building were 97% occupied (practical capacity) the garage would still have a reserve capacity of 34 spaces that could be allocated. Similarly, the North River building with a 97% occupancy still has 20 spaces that could be leased. The North River building also has the highest percentage of absentee tenants: Only 84% of the leased spaces were occupied at 3 AM. This means that if this garage were to shift to a regime of non-assigned parking, another 52 cars could be parked in this garage (in addition to the 20 spaces that are not leased today). Avalon Parking Analysis  Location: 27 Barker Avenue, White Plains, NY  Distance to train station: 0.42 miles    WEEKDAY ‐ Parking Demand Ratio and Percent Occupancy of Peak  (includes employees and visitors)    Total Parking Spaces Parking Type Spaces Rentable spaces Associate Parking Guest Parking Snow Plowing Handicaped Total Spaces Time Period Occupied  Spaces Occupied  Spaces/  Occupied Apt % Occupancy  of Peak 12 PM 0.47                      55% 1 PM 0.47                      55% 2 PM 0.46                      53% 3 PM 0.48                      56% 4 PM 0.51                      60% 5 PM 0.56                      66% 6 PM 0.63                      73% 7 PM 0.69                      80% 8 PM 0.74                      86% 9 PM 0.79                      92% 10 PM 0.83                      96% 11 PM 0.84                      98% 12 AM 0.85                      99% 1 AM 0.86                      99% 2 AM (peak) 0.86                      100% 3 AM 0.86                      100% 4 AM 0.85                      99% 5 AM 0.85                      99% 6 AM 0.81                      95% 7 AM 0.69                      80% 8 AM 0.55                      65% 9 AM 0.50                      59% 10 AM 0.48                      56% 11 AM 0.46                      54% Car Ownership Ratios Unit Type Occupied  Apts Reserved  Spaces Ratio Studios 0.61 1‐BR 0.92 2‐BR 1.26 3‐BR 0.97 Total 0.99 339/389=0.87/unit WEEKEND ‐ Parking Demand Ratio and Percent Occupancy of Peak (includes employees and Visitors)  Occupied  Spaces Occupied  Spaces/  Occupied Apt % Occupancy  of Peak Occupied  Spaces Occupied  Spaces/  Occupied Apt %  Occupancy  of Peak 12 AM 0.83      95% 0.82       94% 1 AM 0.84      97% 0.83       95% 2 AM 0.85      97% 0.84       96% 3 AM 0.85      97% 0.84       96% 4 AM 0.85      98% 0.84       96% 5 AM 0.85      97% 0.84       96% 6 AM 0.84      96% 0.82       94% 7 AM 0.81      93% 0.80       91% 8 AM 0.75      87% 0.75       87% 9 AM 0.69      80% 0.74       85% 10 AM 0.66      76% 0.69       79% 11 AM 0.63      72% 0.65       74% 12 PM 0.61      70% 0.67       77% 1 PM 0.60      69% 0.67       77% 2 PM 0.60      69% 0.67       77% 3 PM 0.60      69% 0.69       79% 4 PM 0.62      71% 0.70       80% 5 PM 0.64      73% 0.76       87% 6 PM 0.66      75% 0.78       89% 7 PM 0.67      77% 0.80       92% 8 PM 0.70      81% 0.84       96% 9 PM 0.72      83% 0.84       97% 10 PM 0.76      87% 0.86       99% 11 PM (peak) 0.80      91% 0.87       100% SATURDAY Time Period SUNDAY 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Percentage of Peak Period: Weekend SUN Evening SUN AM FRI Night Peak Period: Sunday at 11 PM ■ SAT AM SAT Evening SAT Night SUN Night