Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Freightway Site

RedevelopmentTOWFN GR O Study ERGHENBU Village of Scarsdale, Westchester County, NY

Ga rth Road

y d a a w k Ro t Grayroc h g i

F Beatty Lot Freightway Garage

Open Lot n Cir utio cle tit ns o R C ESTE H C e STv c d la EA Scarsdale P F ht oa R.R. Station ig R r W WN O Sca O r m T sdale Ave nue a

P E ast Parkway

0’ 50’25’ 100’

February 2018 This page is intentionally left blank Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

February 2018

Freightway Steering Committee (FSC)

Jonathan Mark (Chair) Justin Arest Farley Baker Jim Blum Kristin Friedman Heather Harrison Barbara Jaffe Matthew Martin Andrew McMurray Elizabeth Marrinan (Village Planner) Chris Morin (Board of Education Liaison) Ingrid Richards (Asst. Village Manager) Marc Samwick (Village Trustee, Deputy Mayor)

BFJ Planning (Consultant Team)

Frank Fish, FAICP Jonathan Martin, Ph.D. AICP Noah Levine, AICP Taylor Young Regina Armstrong (Urbanomics) Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

This page is intentionally left blank Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

CONTENTS 1.0. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1: Purpose of Study 1 1.2: Freightway Site Study Area 3 1.3: Background 8

2.0. EXISTING CONDITIONS 15 2.1: Population Overview 15 2.2: Land Use 19 2.3: Existing Zoning 22 2.4: Transportation (Parking, Access and Circulation) 26 2.5: Urban Design 36 2.6: Case Studies 41

3.0. PUBLIC OUTREACH 43 4.0. VISION FOR FREIGHTWAY SITE 49 5.0. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS 57 5.1: Development Scenarios 61

6.0. IMPACTS AND IMPLEMENTATION 67 6.1: Impacts 68 6.2: Infrastructure 71 6.3: Implementation and Next Steps 72

APPENDIX A: PUBLIC OUTREACH SUMMARY 75

v Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

This page is intentionally left blank vi Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

1.0. INTRODUCTION

1.1: PURPOSE OF STUDY

The Freightway Site Redevelopment Plan is a Village initiated effort to develop a shared community vision for the future development of the Freightway Site, an underutilized area adjacent to the Scarsdale Metro-North Railroad Station. The Village-owned site, which is primarily utilized as a commuter parking facility with a five-story aging garage has long been seen as an opportunity for transit-oriented development (TOD) given its proximity to the train station, bus lines, and one of Westchester’s most walkable and active village downtowns.

The area was one of three key opportunity sites identified in the 2010 Scarsdale train station Update to the Village Center Component of the Comprehensive Plan (“2010 Village Center Plan”). Public outreach conducted in the update revealed that most residents would prefer to see the lot developed as a way to achieve improved parking, a more vibrant Village Center, and amenities such as connectivity, open space and community facilities. While the 2010 Village Center Plan recognized the potential for the site, there was not a clear consensus on the preferred mix of uses and the extent of development that should be allowed.

The purpose of the current study is to follow up on previous planning efforts and provide clear, community-based guidance to ensure any future development enhances Scarsdale’s Village Center, meets local needs, and is economically viable. This study also recognizes factors that have changed since 2010, such as addressing anticipated costs to maintain or upgrade the aging garage facility. Market trends have also changed, as there is an increased demand for apartments in walkable mixed-use developments near transit. There has also been increasing concern over conventional retail store viability due to the impact of internet sales and changing consumer behavior.

Maximizing citizen participation was an essential part of developing a vision for the future of the site. The visioning process was first and foremost about listening to residents and stakeholders and providing them with a forum to share and discuss ideas. The planning process provided numerous opportunities for public input, including three public workshops, an online survey, intercept surveys taken at the train station, public and Freightway Steering Committee walking tours, stakeholder interviews, focus group meetings, and emailed comments.

This study informs future planning by defining a set of realistic and publicly supported development goals and objectives for the site. It is understood that the Village would work with a private sector partner if any development were to occur. This study is intended to guide the Village’s potential next step, which would be the preparation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit developer interest. As such, this “vision report” is not meant to be a detailed plan for the site that might constrain various development approaches. Instead, it is meant to

1 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

set guidelines and goals within which developers could respond with specific plans.

This study was guided by the Freightway Steering Committee (FSC), a diverse group of community members, including residents, representatives from neighborhood organizations, land use boards, and businesses. The Village Board appointed the FSC to create goals and objectives for the redevelopment of the 2.5 acre Freightway site. The FSC met regularly over the course of 8 months to solicit input and develop a vision for the site, with the help of BFJ Planning, a consulting planning firm, and Village staff.

Freightway garage

2 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

1.2: FREIGHTWAY SITE STUDY AREA

The Freightway Site is located in the southwest corner of the Village of Scarsdale, just south of the Scarsdale Train Station, the second busiest stop on the Metro-North Harlem Line. It is also within the Village Center, Scarsdale’s historic and picturesque business district centered around the station.

The 2.5 acre site is currently used for commuter parking with approximately 601 spaces, including an aging fi ve-story parking garage and two surface parking lots (one each to the north and south of the garage). The garage covers approximately 0.68 acres of the site and Open Lot (at Popham Road) has 474 spaces. ProPark valet parks the open lot and the lower level of the garage, effectively increasing the parking capacity to approximately 720 spaces.

The site is bounded by the Popham Road Bridge to the north, the Metro- North train tracks to the east, privately owned mixed-use properties along Garth Road to the west, and the Scarsdale Commons apartment building to the south. For the purpose of this report, 2.4 acres is understood to be the size of the Freightway Site within the Village of Scarsdale. A small portion of the southern end of the site (approx. 0.1 acres) lies within the Town of Eastchester, bringing the entire site to 2.5 acres. As seen in Figure 6, The Freightway site includes 8 different parcels. It is acknowledged by the Village that there are some discrepancies with the precise size of the parcels as the tax parcel data is old. A detailed survey of the site should be conducted to verify the exact parcel boundaries and sizes.

Garth Road Community

Bronx River Parkway Edgemont Neighborhood

Garth Road

Popham Road

FREIGHTWAYFREIGHTWAY SITE SITE Scarsdale Station

Scarsdale Avenue

Overhill Neighborhood Village Center N

Figure 1: Freightway Site Study Area Source: Open Street Maps, Google

3 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

In addition to the Freightway site, the Village owns 0.84 acres of air- rights over the railroad tracks. Located on the other side of the tracks is the 0.49 acre Scarsdale Avenue lot (Village owned) with an additional 77 parking spaces.

The site directly connects to the southbound Metro-North platform via access under the Popham Road Bridge, which was recently replaced and improved. A pedestrian bridge from the third fl oor level of the existing parking garage provides access to the northbound platform. New York City (Grand Central Terminal) can be reached in approximately 30 minutes by express train. The project site is also conveniently located to broader public open space amenities, including the Bronx River Parkway Reservation and the Kensico Dam Plaza, via the parkway’s Freightway site connection to the southbound Metro- North platform via the Popham Road Bridge pedestrian and bicycle connections to the north and south.

MILE 0.5

GREENBURGH

SCARSDALE

FREIGHTWAY SITE

YONKERS EASTCHESTER

Figure 2: Freightway Site Study Area (2)

4 d R

t n Village of Scarsdale o m e Village of Scarsdale g d E

Christie Place

Christie Pl

Lynwood Rd

Spencer Pl

BRONX RIVER

r PARKWAY RESERVATION i ArdsleyGREENBURGH Rd Scarsdale GREENBURGH C Train Station e VILLAGE c a PARK f i

BRONX RIVER PKWY n

Harwood Ct B

E Parkway

Chase Rd

Depot Pl

Popham Rd

Open Lot Overhill Rd

Scarsdale Rd Freightway SCARSDALESCARSDALE YONKERSYONKERS Garth Rd

Freightway Garage

Scarsdale Ave

Beatty Lot LEGEND Circle Rd Freightway Site

Village-owned Land on Scarsdale Ave

Municipal Boundary EASTCHESTEREASTCHESTER Greenway trail

0100200 200 Feet

G ra Source: Westchester County, BFJ Planning Figure 3: Freightway Site Studyy Area (3) ro c k R d Wright Pl

5 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Depot Place Depot Pl

Popham Rd

burgh n

f Gree o

Town

Open Lot

s r Freightway

Garth Rd City of Yonke

Village of Scarsdale

Town of Eastchester Freightway Garage

Scarsdale Ave

Beatty Lot

Village-owned Parking Lot

200 100 0 200 Feet

Figure 5: Freightway Site Study Area Source: Westchester County, BFJ Planning, Google Earth (2016)

6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! 100, 120, 140, 147.19 160, 1GAR ! ! ! 111.18 201W - 207W 34 10 10 129.57 16.62 75.22 127.16 ! 119.72 5 36 18D 64.11 301W - 307W ! 100 ROAD ! ! R 140 95 126.99 49.95 V OF S 18E ! 401W - 407W 12.91 ! 100.29 271.1 2A.2 201E - 207E 15 ! 38 V OF S 124.89 ! RR TRACK 11 3 87.04 18F E 301E - 307E 125 ! PLACE ! 105.95 ! 100.29 33.34 124.89 401E - 407E 66.08 115 V 62.32 40 46.04 SEE SHEET 3B CHRISTIE PLACE1.73A 84.76 115 ! 125 124.89 93.93 I ! 170.5 100.29 2 101.23 80.08 104.19 12 ! 42 35 CHASE 21.19 219.26 R CONDO'S 1 ! 24 10 142.41 97 100.29 213.4 103.73 141.43 73.88 33.96 90.00 19 ! 493.6 75.22 ! 374.36 95 50 207.53 41 79.14 241 V of S! CHRISTIE 1 ! ! 15 199.7 87.58 7.1 95 72.59 500 100 41.17 98.40 ! CRANE 69.25 92.53 ! ! ! PLACE 5 11 191.88 47 70.91 40 115 42 104.62 206.52 13 65.09

5.70 14 40 66 75 10A 9 65.21 184.05 96.4 117.87 75 ! 95.92 ! 100 ! 70 2 83.63 8 ! 10 OAKWOOD PL. 176.23 2.5 159.78 5 100 13 ! WOODLAND ! 116.37 OF 7 14 16 7 5 21.27 127.03 133.59 115 70 55.04 100 500.1 80 ! 50 17 6 ! 12 6 42.21 110 110 123.29 121.40 100 SEE SHEET 2 42 100 2 13.5 ! 10 ! V of S 143.3 151.37 90 70 140 18 8 23 100 108 151.98 ! 11 15 ! 20 95.80 16 70 71.61 51.36 80 9.10 20 150 140.31 ! ! ! 70 V of S ! 5 1 29 153.55 17 115 153.55 ! 212.37 ! LANE 19 5A ! ! ST.JAMES THE LESS BRONX 96.4 20.46 8 64.42 33 203.31 ! 35 43.02 72.33 11 70 26 EPISCOPAL CHURCH ! 20.43 15 85.71 174.27 135 SPENCER 59 22.34 159.97 111.8 195.5 ! 120.38 ! 194.72 1 76.42 6.01 130 187.7 4

2 61 12 109.99 PARKLANDS OF 61.50 PLACE 100 211.78 V of S 15 !

WESTCHESTER COUNTY 7 ! 14 B ROAD 12.5 31.42 68.84 104.95 !

46 5 O 44.12

HARWOOD ! 127.32 111.68

! ! 3.37C ! N 124.57 116.53 6 17 116.60 106

42.56 11 126.26 I V OF S 99.09 50.35

68.29 79.09 F 21 110.32 5 ! 11 15.04

6 A 157.37 14 16 23 90.29 12.5 3 14 90 14 126.94 Village of Scarsdale ! 100 18 C 25

16 135.42 CONSTITUTION 84.89 6 V of S 120.77 4 100 100 5 9 20 ROAD E 165 10 100 ! ! 12 ! 5 115.28 100 BRONX RIVER PARKWAY 109.42 ! 150 Village! CIRCLEof Scarsdale 26 150.07 5 10 100 67.68 28 80 70.81 ! 116.12 125.22 ! 34 90 1A 7 RR TRACK 3 ! 8 150 ! 198.68 15.71 10.09 68.21 ! 75.13 1A

! 135 ! 116.1 ! 357 75.16 175 ! 96 108.15 ! ! 2.6.2A 5 201.1 75.14 SEE SHEET 3B 75.22 1B ! 11 BRONX 84.59 90 150 0.446A 151.66 154.1 ! 80 N 165 150 T PL. 159.62 1 3 0.395A 0.21A 197. 80 0.399A 0.368A 10 CIRCLE 81.36 226.41 100 156.13 ! COURT 9 ! 1 96.55 0.402A (PRIVATE) 260.9 171.58 ! ! 106.11 353.95 DEPO V OF S 5 70.02 EAST COMMUNITY 3 182.99 85 93.28 87.38 7 12 10 108.47 20 16 74.31 BAPTIST 150 ! 169.6 177.84 0.321A 109.01 2 113.05 170.65 6A 500B1 1 97.81 1 ! 61.83 CHURCH 72.06 8 99.99 ! 175.98 141.04 151.77 7.96 112.93 ROAD 95.51 6 TOW 65.3 7 ! 4 17 79 ! 75.38 74.69 78.64 91 ! 4 ! 1.1 ! 1B 0.19A 10 5.7 75.38 142.5 MATCH LN 11.15 CHASE 100 155.62 ! 90 78.60 70 20 80 ! ! 2 71.88 DRIVE 70.8 100.92 41.92 10.41 20A 13 0.393A 86.17 52.70 166.42 150.82 42.75 80 V of S 105.92 20 5 ! 12.38 ARDSLEY RD 27.77 9.6 149.52 15 0.400A ! 35 57.23 92.4 60 122.36 ! ! 1.2 10 21.15 6 7 500B2 38.91 62.67 35 219.45 5 190.94 16.62 0.810A 9 ! 15 142.42 65.30 124.13 ! 171.68 2 10 1 48.26 20.26 5 109.05

POPHAM 0.261A 155.10 74.94 1.000A ! ! 1 70 200 160 SEE SHEET 2 AUTENRIETH ! 115.59 126.91 14 ! 80 42.86 200 ! 3 100 22 ! 36.42 138.67 200 PART OF V of S 28 200 0.317A 3 ROCHAMBEAU 46.94 0 2 7 ! ! 100 136.38 3 2 505 33.83 45 0.322A 16 226 3 43.97 98.85 160.45 65.85 ! 10 1 50 34 01.06.501 500A 31.29 80.37 100.09 6 100 51 8 81.34 292.15 19 22.2 44.24 0.294A 173.91 85.33 36.25 168.25 80.37 ! V of S 80.82 32.59 91.43 ! 86.75 ! 50 90 80 160 ! 83.04 61 32.14 36.25 111.4 880

14.59 75.38 17.53 56.19 9 ! 6 p/o 500 19 ! 387.32 69 75.38 ELMDORF 0.894A 100.56

70 0.291A 84.98 18 71 16 ! 107.87 R 63 ROAD 54.5 75 48 1 ! 56.02 64 157.87 120.49 48 83.3 ROAD 80.37 ! 66 77 CHURCH 150 ! ! p/o 2.6.500 97.56 117.15 16A 29.65 18 0.366A E 45.62 170 ! 92.3 100.28 17.12 76.1 ! 311.67 0.646A VILLAGE 0.294A 150 2 ! 80.37 0.358A V 155.87 34.83 85 24.92 ! 1 155.1 149.79 PARKING ! 160 I 2A 61 160 878 24 47.93 SEE SHEET 2 19 ! 115.85 12A 18.86 38.24 24.8 ! LOTS 20 33 80 305.163 88 ! 86.97 74.74 3 R 128.14 140.34 ANNEX 42 111

66.49 89.86 AVENUE 88.89 150 7 S 36.95 92 81.25 VILLAGE 29.43 ! 173.91 9 YONKER 90.122 3 150 SEE SHEET 3B OF 5 PARKING 874 160 SEE SHEET 1 SEE SHEET 7 93.85 15 ! 96.94 75.75 LOTS 45.57 32 52.17 28.26 CITY FREIGHTWAY 75 171.87 ! POPHAM PARKLANDS OF ! 42.27 ! 85.57 ! 14 34 2 29.26 80 110 103 124.51 50.12 166.77 12 14A 4 129.04 22 119.54 5 111.77 103 42.26 118 7 ! 123.48 100 WESTCHESTER COUNTY 30 ! 2A 75 39 6 ! 98.159 16.16A.17 ! 50 85 10 . ! 100 122 0 864 65 8 15 117.61 117.74 32 ! 30.673 2.33A 42.43 ! 75 5 100 128.32 11 RR TRACK 55.73 117.6 65 116.02 21 120 34 22 ! 10.13 37 7 5 146.95 79.84 ! 343.74 89.86 35.83 133.1 35 75 20A 154.28 23.47 33.81 ! 12 89.43 ! 3A 150.11 22 131.6 36 ! 38 204.31 BRONX V OF S 120 54.3 36 30 ! 120.37 8 100.07 13 V OF S 74.73 29 100 38 45 336.34 ! ! 5.78 ! 113.3 SOUTH 862 11.12 5 97 ! 14 30 ! 149.17 ! 40 10 121.05 ! 23 92 25 3 23 3 100.2 154.97 17.5 4 137.71 ! ! 161.71 10 167.23 ! 171.62 15 16 ! 42 7 1.72 35 ! ! 38.49 ! 102.16 1 114.36 163.11 109.7 9 251.33 129.01 101.88 41.82 7 22.44 16 90 79.97 17 3 ! 7 ! 26 110.37 ! 44 15 171.87 85.97 ! 5 16 109.02 16 774 88.93 15 253.172 1.47A 202.17 20 47.23 44.9 210.42 ! 17 ! 103.58 115 46 ! ! 46.73 LOCKWOOD ! 45 860 ! 75 83 24 40 18 ! 18 FREIGHTWAY 45 2 70.56 165.92 34.7 48 50.66 91.21 2 GARTH 100.14 ! .667A ! 75 9 LANE TOWN PARKING 70.9 40.52 25 19 112.43 28 101.2511 296.39 90 87.26 58.58 15 50 ! 163.6 75 ! STRUCTURE 77.2 30.26 20 102.4 20 75 21 21 89.37 52 ! 114.94 ! 90.62 ROAD 114.95 27 !

21 ! OVERHILL 107.95 85.65 ROAD 21.76 8 54 22 LANE 90

! 858 27 2 39.94 125.8 144.6 110 ! ! 73.92 254.79 V OF S 25 75 90 233.27 51 ! 22 6 56 1A ! 14 10 27 38.36 94 61.7 49.34 858 9 ! 185 130.87 5 18 39.08 12 23 123.63 26 92.2 107.26 124.77 110.05 7 24 109.92 120 ROAD 66.34 106 77.5877 8 126.94 130.05 122.16 ! 75 5 107.26 102.4 388.78 122.15 50.38 5 15.8726 ! 6 ! ! MUNICIPAL PARKING 28 4A4A! 90 83 53.93 30 ! 4 30 42.39 14 30 93.33 ! ! ! 92.42 66 59.22 75 81.14 7 34.37 27.69 25 121.15 16 V OF S 75.09 111.52 ! ! 32 ! ! 6 ! 45.49 ! 116.96 130.81 254.5 ! 7 47.34 66.6 9 115.65 446.54 856 19 90.86 24 121.68 2 222.54 127.18 44.25 29 152.1 33.43 77.06 17 60 33 106.04 208.39 6 75 112.7 130.7 ! 100 51 60.6 ! 23 69.28 18 8 11 122.84 15 85.76 ! 10 ! 88 12 115.98 5 44.77 HATHAWAY ! 153.77 100 105 ! 72.71 128.91 109.98 125 37 198.8 58.66 9 182.18 50 103.49 CIRCLE 30.24 49.97 ! 113.37 22 ! LOCKWOOD ! 20 112 ! 8 121.15 ! 128.58 169.01 44.28 852 66.86 1.19 ! 75.03 51.86 38 19 ! 61.94 19 212.05 78.81 3 124.78 31 64.57 35.42 ! 112.94 21 156.18 120.27 ! 12 91.32 100.75 SCARSDALE ! 30 75.77 13.81 85 82.71 67.3 125 15 138.87 45 124.3 ! 98.08 93.02 92.13 110.88 CHURCH 161.16 77.69 28.29 90 177.12 0.1 acre in Town of Eastchester 31.26 47.66 23.752 86.9 43 ! 3 20 42.95 . 14 66.89 44 7 60 2 ! 5 75.86 ! 98.67 85 44 91.26 6.61 62.71 5 84.76 0 45.9 3.17 39.81 1.27 3 22 60.61 ! 45 145.72 12 ! 23 ! 10 21 61 90.85 126.68 ! 18.1 11 51.98 167.91 11.84 107.69 17 122.38 75.17 ! 94.82 40.46 122.13 193.33 130 850 ! 139.07 78.39 30 139.82 53 59.63 191.26 135 39 ! 44.28 50.28 84 60.6 6 131.37 113.52 88.33 20.51 ! (49.835) TISDALE Use S-B-L Address Acres Square Feet 7 100.87 71.1 ROAD ! 128.31 ! ! 32 32.88 100 63 121.04 6 25 ROAD 64 77.12 40.36 93.7 1 122.88 ! 86.87 59 50.3 115 Open Lot 846 138.06 41.13 ! ! 139.82 88.93 45.39

52.29 ! 43.78 21.01 106.5 8 153.54 1.161 26 119.57 208.46 31 ! 2 87.85 79.15 7 1.6.1 10-16 Popham Road 0.11 5,000 75.7 27 10.28 78.19 68.89 122.22 ! 9 20.51 131.61 83.81 ! ! 76.8 102 ! 37.19 31.73 128 52.53 50.92 120.91 65 33.41 38 135.67 72.34 9 4 131.02 1.6.6 15 Freightway 0.30 13,258 120 7 28 15.71 105 44.86 9 15.72 3.2 2 WINSLOW ! ! 7 86.84 29 146.07 CIRCLE 117.43 PLACE (PRIV.) 107.3 ! 10.31 10.11 47.04 80 6.53 7A 2.6.500 A 22 Popham Road 0.04 1,196 54.54 ! 66 11 145 133.72 49.97 214.44 3 105 92.21 54.87 31 11 30 ! 38.88 150 65 115 51 122.51 220.28 88.9 4 2.6.500 - 0.10 3,288 31 105.71 75 128.77 DRIVE 1 ! 13.46 45 ! 130.66 106.88 15.71 ! 105 ! 10 166.84 8 ! 6 212.3 OF 71.38 ! 169.4 80 Subtotal 0.55 22,742 12 8 ! 7 60 32.07 6 40 ! 8 153.59 106.02 133.75 13 3 124.45 68 105.31 140 132.1 87.55 ! 115.61 117.39 ! 30 10.95 110.61 ! 77.44 ! Freightway Garage ! ! 46 172.37 ! 46 12 ! 6 80.19 402.37 60 60 5 6A 140 52 160.32 75.67 75 248.9 196.81 186.27 ! 1.6.3 14 Freightway 1.42 61,880 195.8 4 124.45 66 ! DRIVE 25.42 4 75.99 114.64 84.57 ! 197.4 SEE SHEET 7 77 29 106.22 110 89.05 75 220 59 28 105 1.6.3A 0 Garth Road 0.05 2,530 15 135 112.5 ! ! 7 14 ! 60 100 2 ! 154.21 115 44 41 BRONX RIVER PARKWAY 64.56 45.94 3 Subtotal 1.47 64,410 ! 1 115 110 41.83 9 234.93 105.25 ! 10 ! 140.69 75 5 11 41.83

138.96 59.61 168.03 122.5 Beatty Lot 186.73 73.02 ! ! 109.64 74.73 ROAD 11 170.84 5 115.1 5.6B 17 75 186.92 ! 88.02 ! 67 ! ! 100 125 26 162.5 79 1.6.4 0 Garth Road 0.41 17,914 59 ! 114.7 76 109.83 110.84 1 15.39 18 27 14 ! 220.79 100 54 122.5 25 109.51 2 SCHOOL 144.7 112.5 8 25.57 .. Eastchester Road 0.10 4,460 4 75 121.34 116.11 ! 162.5 ! ! 116.54 ! ! 39.17 SEE SHEET 1 105.16 115 40 21 73.02 Subtotal 0.51 22,374 110 5.6A 110 147.6 91.34 ! ! 353.64 11 194.08 9 102.67 ROAD 25A 189.33 150.44 17 DRAKE Total 2.53 109,526 110.63 207.63 115 50 134.37 110.14 AXTELL 127.5 23 32.44 3 ! 200 27.36 6 64.82 139.43 68 66.84 75 110.09 25 75 POND 52.64 12 ! ! 73.23 149.2 ! ! Source: Village of Scarsdale Tax Assesor 72.89 50 45.04 57 80 ! 119.2 EASTCHESTER ! 21 1A 50.02 157.5 55 ! 111.07 4.312A ! 73 145.71 64.82 152.5 29.77 47.12 56 53 196.05 119.68 ! 36 102.19 75 58 72.51 110 198.05 2 35 4 132.19 ! 37.27 ! 122.5 3 68.82 SEE SHEET 8 5 122.5 AXTELL ! 184.84 99.41 78.33 22 Figure 6: Freightway Site Study Area Parcels 21.69 57 SEE SHEET 1 73.94 ! 75 150 ! 50 85 84.14 ! 74 ! ! ! 73 110.09 25 100 ! 50.02 110 61 138.55 51 46 ! 85 229.05 191.96 ! 81 ! 72.51 75 1 77 20 50.02 34 137.27 ! 69 32.82 123.7 25 43 26 100 47.12 63 303.67 2 50 50.02 54.61 19 24.6 41 87 1 BROWN 75 79.46 82.14 71 50 47 111.06 62 ! 50.02 17.56 40 73 2 37 146.4 105.1 30 ! 46 ! 40.27 50 50 ! 50.02 143.03 22 78 83 32 75 1 ! ! 132.18 37A 50 75 ! 22 1 70 100 54.9 63.67 73 130.91 ! 21.99 20.28 43.56 35 50 70 110.09 318.46 95 ! ! ! 7 ! 75 74 143.35 119.7 68.26 70.15 82 129.64 ! 105.98 45 100 77.53 ! TISDALE 39 ! 50 33 ! 60 82 128.37 48.36 ! 21.7 31.63 30 87.45 ! 23 ! 65 86 50 127.09 ! 81.54 2! 21 99 50 107.86 71 120.91 ! 50 92 125.82 27 120 ! ! 17 13.81 103 50 63.45 44 50 94 124.42 18 157.16 ! ALIDA RD. 25 ! 105 50 ! 77.67 75 50 98 24 50.36 30 43 16 ! 30.22 81.19 27 50 ! 107 122.64 48.3 11 60 50 102 72 110.01 ! 83 29 50 13 ! 109 ! 22 75 ! 16 ! 100 50 105 70.12 ! 65 SEE SHEET 7 30 50 ! 114.56 19 110 11 50 111 20 ! 50 ! 50 107 5 95 31 7B ! 87 113 46.08 50 82.74 ! TOWN 50 ! 108 17 70.14 100 ! 35 21 50 7A ! 115 101 ! 59 50 50 110 63 80 12 ! ! 15 ! 37 50 50 5 ! 49.84 TAUNTON 121.33 63 50 50 112 117 50 86.65 ! 101.08 94.08 39 50 50 3 ! 6 30.29 31.62 69 50 100 50 114 119 101.14 ! ! 75 108.42 24.44 41 75 50 1 ! SEE SHEET 8 108.42 8 75 50 ! 75 ! 50 100 ! 116 121 ! 43 50 100.48 36.03 ! 77 50 ! 75 87.54 BRAMBACH ! 50 118 123 50 66 23 115.3 123.59 16(S) 79 50 46 120 ! ! ROAD 50 125 61.38 59.6 70 21 ! 120 74.2 19.5(S) 10(S) 85 50 203 ! ! 50 122 75.35 109.93 19 1 162.36 ! ! 25.27B ROAD 127 101.88 75 76 89 50 ! ! 77.74 105.83 20 50 50 101.45 124 86A ! 16 ! ! ! 80 2 50 93 100 105 75 EAST 37 ! 18 66.74 100 75 ! 82 75 75 100 ! 56.91 50 101 25.27A 14 130 96 10 ! 84.47 100 ! V OF S 28.83 35 75 118.04 103.17 64.78 29 50 ! 88 ! 12 100 49.59 ! 105 NOT PAVED157.36 73.45 97.34 90 32 50 10 ! 1C 94 ! 100 16 ! 80 205! 75 100 8 50 98 50 8.5 105 204 109.3 ! 212.56 94.06 100 ! 19 5 100 ! 35.22 107 50 36 16.5 96.38 ! ! 50 14 50 102 ! 50 ! ! 109 34 38 75 2.66 75 20 31.73 13 TAUNTON 50 50 106 ! 100 20 1 6 ! ! 40 100 90 35 111 V OF S 75 50 9 50 50 ! ! 5 100 86 ! 42.44A 42 33 90 22 108 113 50 ! 29 13.32 !35 37.5 ! 20.72 100 63.45 37.5 7 ! 117 42.44B 58 110 1.81 50 50 50.2 ! 100 ! 33.45 6 37 50 ! 100 ! 75 5 50 112 119 50 46 4 1 ! 120 120 84 39.44 ! WINDSOR 54.5 1B 45.5 114 10 100 50 121 50 83(S) 59.4639 40 75 ! ! ! 116 100 ! 18 ! LEE 1A 100 37.5 123 58.50 2 ROAD 87.00 87 77 43 50 100 50 60.56 ! ! 37.5 118 79.48 21.23B 20.54 ! 37.5 125 58.50 87 ! 52.63 172.72 81 45 50 50 120 75 20.52 ! 40.5437.5 ! 21.23A 85 100 ! 50 122 127 58 47 ! ! 89 ! 49.46 75 19 ! 50 124 129 121.06 NOT PAVED 93 ! 18 ! 50 50 25 50 126 ! AVENUE 16 ! 14 79.48 100 97 27 37.5 50 128 176.25 85 213 50 EWART 62.5 211.98 ROAD 106.87 100 37.5 14 ! 70 101 ! 52 130 219 ! 50 29 62.5 ! 95.91 12 ! 0.23A ! ! ! 105 73SECTION 01 2E 32 10 ! ! 540 69.47 ! 124 ! 50 34 8 5.62 16 107 ! 9.06 34.03 24(S) 50 50 6 ! 139.64 70 15 102 109 38 100 28(S) 18 4 122 20 ! ! 50 20 ! 106 62.5 20.33 ! 100 40.33 15 50 23 111 40A 52 1 20 ! 2 62.5 ! 36.47 21.95 LEE 36 ! 40B 50 HYATT FIELD 100 1 108 73 BLOCK 1-6 49.06 113 50 ! 218 ! 42.56 120 24 PREPARED FOR 75 115 44 75 60 ! 93.06 MAP REVISIONS MAP REVISIONS SPECIAL DISTRICTS LEGEND 12.96 112 50 ! TAX MAP 48.49 79.41 126.03 20.56 ! 75 117 50 ! 46 1 ROAD 100 2D 60 MADE BY A PROPERTY LINE 50 TOWN OF SCARSDALE DATE REVISIONS DATE MADE BY REVISIONS SCARSDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT BRONX VALLEY SEWER DISTRICT AMBULANCE DIST. COUNTY LINE DEED ACREAGE 1.03A 119 50 2 2 2 ! ! 80 14 75.1 50 ! Page 1 of 72 TOWN OF SCARSDALE50 ! F ROAD BOUNDARY ! 4 12/1/2015 DSA SPLIT 01.03.5.6 TO 5.6A & 5.6B FIRE DIST. TOWN LINE CALCULATED ACREAGE 1.03A(C)ROAD !

ASSESSOR'S OFFICE BLOCK LIMIT LINE 57.44 1 SEWER DIST. S VILLAGE LINE ! DEED DIMENSION 50 WESTCHESTER COUNTY, NEW YORK REVISED THRU 05/01/2017 PREPARED BY ORIGINAL LOT LINE 7 THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FOR ! 127.84 ! 38 0 WATER DIST. W DEED LOT NUMBER SCALED DIMENSION! 50(S) TAX PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT 100 ! 100 RAILROAD BOUNDARY TO BE REPRODUCED OR USED FOR ! 43 ADDITIONAL REFERENCE DIMS. (50) MRB Group, P.C. SCHOOL DIST. SCH STREAM ORIGINAL BLOCK NUMBER ! 8 SURVEYING OR CONVEYANCING. ! ± ! DENOTES COMMON OWNER TAX MAP BLOCK NUMBER 2 COORDINATE LOCATOR ! GRID BASED ON NEW YORK STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM LIGHTING DIST. L GRAPHIC SCALE EAST ZONE, 1983 NORTH AMERICAN DATUM IN FEET RIGHT OF WAY/ESMT LINE COORDINATE VALUES NAD 1983 SHEET INDEX 9/1/2010 ! MAP DATE 1" = 100' ! 1 ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

1.3: BACKGROUND

This planning effort recognizes that the Freightway Site has had a long history, with a range of development scenarios advanced over the years. Aside from the existing parking garage that was built in 1972, all previous developments for Freightway have been deemed too large for the small-scale feeling and character of the Village Center. Figure 7 on the following page tracks some of the major milestones related to the site. Planning for the site goes back to 1929 when the Village released a study of three options for parking on the site, which was then occupied by two other businesses.

History: 1960-1980 A total of 11 reports examined Village Center issues between 1966 Design Guidelines for the Village Center (1984). and 1971. These reports promoted common themes, which included proposing a three-story parking garage at Freightway, expanding parking on the west side of East Parkway, moving the train station south of Popham Road, building a bridge over the railroad tracks to Scarsdale Avenue, and ensuring that all development in the Village is predominately residential. Other notable points from this period include the Village adopting its fi rst Master “Policies” Plan for the Village Center in 1968, and a separate “Twin Towers” proposal that recommended 16 and 24-story buildings at the Freightway Site. The existing parking garage was constructed in 1972, as a fi ve-story structure with 474 parking spaces. In 1975, the Village acquired the adjoining Semmes Property also known as the “Open Lot”, and invited bids for limited mixed use development with parking and improved pedestrian connections. Two redevelopment proposals were received between 1975 and 1981, both of which were rejected by a citizens’ An Update of the Village Center Component of the committee primarily because the proposals were deemed as too large. Village of Scarsdale Comprehensive Plan

History: 1980-2000

In 1984 Buckhurst, Fish, Hutton & Katz developed downtown guidelines Village of Scarsdale Comprehensive Plan (Update, as a basis for future rezoning of the Village Center. The report identifi ed 2010) Freightway as an underutilized site and analyzed the feasibility of additional long-term parking at the site in order to conserve short-term Village Center parking for shoppers. The 1984 report proposed several development strategies for the Village Center. Most of these involved redeveloping the portion of the Freightway Site south of Popham Road with a mixed-use building that would feature residential and retail or offi ce units and 400 vehicle parking spaces. The report also proposed using the southernmost portion of the Freightway site (Beatty Site) for public parking, and making improvements around the site by removing vacant buildings adjacent to Popham Road and providing landscaping at the garage entry across the railroad tracks.

8 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

In 1985, a study by Divney & Canelos also recommended redeveloping the Freightway site with a mixed-use program, including retail, office, residential and parking in a single structure. The study also called for widening of the Popham Road Bridge. In 1989, the Village adopted new zoning for the Village Center and issued an RFP for station area development; Penn Central doing business as Scarsdale Depot Associates was selected as master developer in 1990. Penn Central’s plans for the site met significant public opposition and the planning effort led to the appointment of a Citizens Advisory Committee on Downtown Redevelopment.

In 1995 the Citizens Advisory Committee issued a report with recommendations for the Freightway Open Lot, including retaining and Scarsdale Train Station refurbishing the parking garage, redeveloping the Freightway site, and considering proposals that include decking over the railroad tracks. The committee proposed that any new development self-contain its own parking needs, replace any displaced parking, and provide additional overall parking capacity within the Village Center. Specifically, the committee recommended that the Freightway site be developed with 55,000 to 70,500 square feet of mixed use residential and retail, and at least 340 parking spaces. Buildings on the site were proposed to be above a three level parking garage.

History: 2000-2010 In the 2000s, the Village completed a number of significant projects in the Village Center. In 2007, the Depot Place parcel on Popham Road across from the Freightway site was redeveloped. The project includes parking built into the existing slope, with retail facing the railroad station and on Popham Road, and offices on the upper floors. In 2008, the Christie Place mixed-use development was built. This project was realized after a long effort to replace the existing surface parking lot with a three-level parking garage. Christie Place is an example of how a process of careful review and consideration by the Village can produce appropriate, contextually scaled development solutions that exceed simple pragmatics. Christie Place replaced the original parking structure proposal with 42 condominiums, ground floor retail, and commuter/resident/public parking provided below ground. Completing the downtown environment that is visible today, in 2012 the Popham Road Bridge was replaced. It was widened and improved to provide a platform access to the southbound Metro-North Railroad tracks from the Freightway Site.

9 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

1966 - 1971 Total of 11 Reports to the Village examining Village Center issues Common Themes: 1986-87 - Full 1987-88 - Village - 3-story parking garage at Freightway Environmental adopts moratorium - Expanded parking on west side of East Parkway Impact Study on development - Move train station south of Popham Zoning Recommendations for the Freightway Site in - Bridge tracks to Scarsdale Avenue commissioned for until an overall plan the 2010 Village Center Plan - Ensure that all development is predominantly residential 1975 - 1981 Village Center is adopted Village Receives Two - Option 1: Landscape and no change Redevelopment Proposals - Option 2: Parking structure with mixed-use liner (retail/office only) 1990 - Ten - Option 3: Parking structure with mixed-use, including residential - Option 4: Various with sliding scale FAR - mixed use - Polera Construction Corporation development firms - Starrett Development Corporation invited to participate in RFP and two respond. Penn Central dba Scarsdale Depot 1957 - 1971 - Second F. P. Clark 1984 - Village hires Associates (which 2010 - Village 1960 - Institute for RAMPCO - fiscal analysis finds tax Buckhurst, Fish, Hutton & owned almost all of 1993 - Village Board 2007 - Village adopts An Update of 2017 - Village Public Administra- study recom- 1968 - Village’s benefits for commercial vs. Katz to develop down- non-Village decides on a hiatus and commissions Phillips, the Village Center issues RFP for tion recommends mends 3-story first Master residential about equal, but town design guidelines - property) selected appoints Citizens Advisory Preiss & Shapiro Component of the Freightway Site 3-story garage at garage at “Policies” Plan residential would have less as basis for future as master Committee on Downtown Associates to update Village of Scarsdale Redevelopment Freightway site. Freightway site. adopted traffic & parking impact rezoning of Village Center developer Redvelopment. Village Center Plan Comprehensive Plan Study

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

1929 - Village 1967 - F. P. Clark study 1969 - 1972 - 1975 - Village 1982 - Both 1995 - Citizens relases study of 3 recommends expanded “Twin Freightway acquires adjoining proposals 1989 - Village Advisory Committee options for parking parking infrastructure Towers” Parking Semmes Property - rejected by adopts new issues recommendations on Freightway Site and strengthened proposal Garage Invites bids for limited citizens’ zoning for for the Freightway Site (locations then of connections to Village - 16 and built mixed use develop- committee as Village Center Scarsdale Supply Center 24 stories ment with parking TOO LARGE, and issues RFP company (selling proposed and improved “MASSIVE” for station area 1995 Citizens Advisory Committee coal & building and pedestrian redevelopment Recommendations for Freightway Site supplies since 1914) rejected connections & an automotive - 55,000 - 70,500 sf total (FAR 1.17 to 1.50) repair garage) 1990-93 - Village and Scarsdale Depot Associates - Up to 63,000 sf residential 1985 - Divney & Canelos Study of - Not less than 7,000 sf and no more than 14,000 sf retail/office Frieghtway site - recommends mixed sign two memoranda of - Office preferred over retail use, including retail, office, residen- understanding in an effort to - Parking of at least 340 spaces tial and parking + widening of reach development agreement Popham Road Bridge Figure 7: Freightway Site History Timeline of Planning Studies, Proposals,

10 Recommendationas and Actions Related to Freightway Site Sources: “Findings and Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Downtown (Village Center) Devlopment” Scardale, NY 1995; “An Update of Village Center Component of the Village of Scarsdale Master Plan” 1995. Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

TimelineSources: “Findings and Recommendations of Planning of the Advisory Committee Studies, on Downtown (Village Proposals, Center) Development” Scarsdale, NY 1995, “An Update of Village Center Component of the Village of Scarsdale Master Plan” 1995 Recommendationas and Actions Related11 to Freightway Site Sources: “Findings and Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Downtown (Village Center) Devlopment” Scardale, NY 1995; “An Update of Village Center Component of the Village of Scarsdale Master Plan” 1995. Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

2010 Village Center Plan In 2010, the Village completed An Update of the Village Center Component of the Comprehensive Plan (“2010 Village Center Plan”) to “take a fresh look at the Village Center in the wake of recent Village Center Goals development.” The objectives of the 2010 Village Center Plan were from 2010 Village Center Plan to ensure a comprehensive perspective, and to preserve, protect and enhance the Village Center. That planning effort involved an extensive community outreach that included public meetings, work sessions, stakeholder interviews, and surveys of shoppers and commuters at the Village Center. Protect the Village Center feeling, including its scale The 2010 Village Center Plan developed six major goals for the Village and character. Adhere to Center, each of which is applicable to the Freightway site Open Lot 1 Scarsdale design principles. (see sidebar). The goals assumed structured parking and prescribed below grade parking where possible, and active ground-fl oor uses that would help screen the parking structure. The goals also state that Attend to traffi c congestion, any redevelopment of the site should be required to “provide and/or and enhance walk-ability and enhance connections to Scarsdale Avenue, Garth Road, and the river.” 2 pedestrian safety and amenities. Maintain an acceptable level of The 2010 Village Center Plan identifi ed Freightway as one of three key parking availability. sites that are likely to be redeveloped in Village Center, in addition to the east side of Scarsdale Avenue, and the commercial development Contribute to shopping, bound by Spencer Place and Christie Place. It is important to note, dining and cultural variety. however, that the 2010 Village Center Plan considered the Open Lot 3 and the adjacent private properties on Garth Road; it did not look at the Freightway garage or the Beatty Lot to the south of the garage.

The Plan considers four options for the Freightway site: Provide or connect assets to each other. 1. No changes other than landscaping improvements; 4

2. A parking structure wrapped by retail and offi ce uses only;

3. A parking structure below a mixed-use building that includes Embrace innovation and residential; and “green” principles.

4. The preferred option with mixed-use development that includes 5 allowable development on a sliding scale depending on amenities and decking over the railroad tracks. Be fi scally responsible The 2010 Village Center Plan states that at the very least the lot should be landscaped, but that the fourth option would encourage a developer to provide greater amenities to the Village community. This option could 6 result in the construction of a mixed-use residential development, increased parking, a public plaza, community cultural space, and workforce or age-restricted housing. Because the Village owns the air rights and the majority of the site, it can dictate bulk and height trade- offs for preferred amenities.

While the 2010 Village Center Plan provided guidelines for development, it wasn’t specifi c with regards to the types of uses, the scale of development and how development might be phased to have the least amount of impact on the Village Center and commuters.

12 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Freightway Site Redevelopment Study In 2017 the Village commissioned this visioning document to gain further consensus on the types of uses, the scale of development and how development might be phased to minimize inconvenience to commuters and businesses and shoppers in the Village Center. One key consideration not addressed in the 2010 Village Center Plan is the fact that the Freightway garage is aging and in need of significant repairs and maintenance. Current budget projections estimate repair and maintenance expenses of $1.8 million and LED lighting and a new facade for an additional $0.5 million. Additionally, this document explores options that include the Open Lot south of Popham Road, the parking garage, and the surface parking lot south of the parking deck (Beatty site). The latter two areas were not considered in the 2010 and 1995 studies.

This plan also considers current economic and demographic trends, which have changed, even since 1995, making potential redevelopment more feasible. Foremost is a trend for empty nesters and younger families, who are increasingly moving to walkable communities with access to public transit. Transit-oriented development (TOD) has been embraced by many communities with similar attributes to Scarsdale, and there have been numerous successful projects in the vicinity. Lastly, retail patterns have changed due to the growing interest in online shopping. While the retail brick-and-mortar market has softened, there appears to be demand for experiential type retail which offers hands- on, authentic experiences.

Public workshops for Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

13 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

14 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

2.0. EXISTING CONDITIONS

2.1: POPULATION OVERVIEW

In 2015, The Village of Scarsdale had a population of 17,621 in 5,487 households.1 According to the United States Decennial Census, the population declined by 3.7 percent between 2000 and 2010. It rebounded slightly from 2010 to 2015, but population is still down Greenburgh by approximately 1 percent since 2000. Comparatively, Westchester County experienced increases in population both between 2000 and

s Scarsdale e 2010, and between 2010 and 2015. Table 1 shows the population l i

. changes for Westchester County, Scarsdale, and a “neighborhood 0 Freightway area”, which includes Census Block Groups within a half-mile radius of Site the Freightway site; this includes areas within adjacent municipalities. A half-mile is generally considered to be a reasonable walking distance for transit-oriented development. The neighborhood area includes Yonkers areas within the Village of Scarsdale, including the Village Center, as Eastchester well as portions of other municipalities to the east and south including Census Block Groups the Town of Eastchester, City of Yonkers, and the Edgemont community within 0.5 miles in the Town of Greenburgh. The neighborhood area also includes the multi-family neighborhood along Garth Road in the Town of Eastchester. Source: Westchester County, US Census Bureau, BFJ Planning

Table 1: Population

Total Population Neighborhood Scarsdale Westchester Area* County 2015 Estimate 11,729 17,621 967,315 2010 Census 11,442 17,166 949,113 2000 Census -* 17,823 923,459 Growth 2010-2015 2.50% 2.65% 1.91% 2000-2010 -* -3.67% 2.70% Source: 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2010 Decennial Census * The immediate area includes all census block groups within a half-mile of the Freightway garage, which includes locations in neighboring municipalities. Median Household Income fi gures for the immediate area are weighted average median household incomes, and are not shown for 2000 due to a geographic difference.

Table 1 and Table 2 suggest that just as Scarsdale’s population fell from 2000 to 2010, it then increased from 2010 to 2015, along with the number of households. Westchester County showed a growth in households from 2000 to 2010, but that amount fell between 2010 and 2015. The number of households within the neighborhood area has stayed approximately the same since 2010, and is estimated at 4,691.

1 Demographic statistics are referenced from the following United States Census surveys: 2010-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 Decennial Census, 2005-2010 Five-Year ACS, and 2000 Decennial Census.

15 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Table 2: Households

Households Neighborhood Scarsdale Westchester Area* County 2015 Estimate 4,691 5,487 341,866 2010 Census 4,690 5,418 347,232 2000 Census -- 5,662 337,142 Growth 2000-2015 -- -3.1% 1.4% Average household size 2015 2.5 3.2 2.8 2010 2.4 3.2 2.7 2000 2.3 3.1 2.7 Source: 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2010 Decennial Census * The immediate area includes all census block groups within a falf-mile of the Freightway garage, which includes locations in neighboring municipalities.

Age

Table 3 presents data on population age and suggests that the Village of Scarsdale has a higher percentage of persons under 18 compared to the County as a whole. This can be largely attributed to the strong focus within the community on the school system. Within the neighborhood area, the percentage of school age children more closely approximates that of the County’s average than that of the Village at large. The neighborhood area also has a higher proportion of young adults (aged 18 to 34) and senior citizens (aged 65+) and a smaller average household size than both the Village and the County. These findings can be partially attributed to the concentration of apartment buildings along Garth Road that are desirable to “empty nester” households as well as younger families with children. As seen in Table 3, the percentages of residents by age category, within each geographic area, has not changed significantly in the past 15 years.

Table 3: Age Age Composition Neighborhood Scarsdale Westchester (Percent) Area County Under age 18 2015 23.3 32.1 23.2 2010 24.6 33.7 24.0 2000 -- 32.8 25.0 Age 18 to 34 2015 12.0 8.2 20.1 2010 11.7 7.3 19.5 2000 - 9.7 20.6 Age 65+ 2015 20.2 14.1 15.3 2010 20.0 13.9 14.7 2000 -- 11.6 14.0 Source: 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2010 Decennial Census

16 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Income

Table 4 shows the Median Household Income (adjusted for inflation) declined in the neighborhood area, the Village and the County between 2000 and 2015.2 In 2015, the Village’s median income was $252,493, which is almost three times higher than the County’s median income of $87,316. Within the neighborhood area, the median income is approximately $90,000 lower than the Village overall, but is still approximately $73,000 greater than Westchester County. The neighborhood area’s lower median household income could be due to the influence of portions of the area of analysis that are outside the Village of Scarsdale, or to its greater proportion of senior residents.3 Single-family detached homes at Scarsdale Table 4: Income Income Neighborhood Scarsdale Westchester (2017 Dollars) Area County Median household income 2015 $160,248 $252,493 $87,316 2010 $168,391 $265,591 $89,173 2000 - $263,220 $91,558 Change (in real terms) 2000-2015 - -4.1% -4.6%

Source: 2010-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2010 Decennial Census

Housing

Table 5 shows the mix of housing types and values in the three geographic areas. While the Village as a whole is overwhelmingly comprised of single-family detached homes (94 percent), the neighborhood area with 53 percent single-family homes includes concentrations of other uses, including multi-family units. There was a slight increase in the number of owner-occupied housing units in both the immediate area and Scarsdale between 2010 and 2015, and a slight decrease in renter-occupied units in the neighborhood area. The neighborhood area has more renter-occupied units than Scarsdale, even with its smaller population. Median home values in the neighborhood area were higher than in Westchester County, but lower than in the Village as a whole.

2 All monetary statistics listed in this section have been adjusted for inflation using the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, and are listed in 2017 dollars. 3 Median Household Income figures orf the immediate area are weighted average median household incomes, and are not shown for 2000 due to a geographic difference in samples.

17 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Table 5: Housing Mix

Housing Units Neighborhood Scarsdale Westchester (value in 2017 dollars) Area County Owner-occupied 2015 4,019 4,975 210,195 2010 3,872 4,947 213,888 2000 -- 5,152 202,673 Renter-occupied 2015 672 512 131,671 2010 768 512 129,042 2000 -- 510 134,469 Scarsdale train station Percent housing units in single-family detached homes 2015 53.0% 94.1% 44.8% Median value of owner-occupied units 2015* $758,070 $1,279,824 $527,176 2010* $723,109 $1,120,000 $623,728 2000* - $995,616 $411,552 Source: 2011-2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 2010 and 2010 Decennial Census * Median Value figures for the immediate area are weighted average median household incomes.

Commuting Patterns

In the Village of Scarsdale, more people travel to work by public transportation (e.g. the train) than by car. As shown in Table 6, Freightway site approximately 45 percent of workers commute by public transportation (i.e. Metro-North railroad), which is more than double the average for the County as a whole. Within the neighborhood area, a smaller percentage of workers commute via train than in the Village of Scarsdale. This is contrary to what would be expected given the neighborhood area’s proximity to the train station, and suggests that the neighborhood is home to some workers who commute to New York City, but many others that commute elsewhere in the region. Three percent of residents in the neighborhood area walk or bike to work, a figure that is larger than the Village as a whole, where fewer than 1 percent bike or walk.

Table 6: Transportation – Getting to Work (2015)

Means of Travel to Work Neighborhood Scarsdale Westchester Area County Drove alone 52.80% 38.00% 58.50% Carpooled 2.60% 3.80% 7.87% Public transportation 35.30% 44.70% 21.70% Walked or bicycled 3.00% 0.78% 5.24% Other means 0.50% 1.12% 1.62% Worked at home 5.70% 4.97% 11.37% Average vehicles per household 1.41 1.56 2.00 Source: 2015 Five-Year American Community Survey (ACS)

18 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

2.2: LAND USE

Land uses around the Freightway site are varied, with a mix of single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial development. The tenure, or type of multi-family development are a mix of rentals, condominiums, and cooperative apartments. The notable neighborhoods in the area include (1) the Village Center, which includes the mixed-use business district focused on the train station, (2) Garth Road which is lined with neighborhood-oriented commercial uses and has a concentration of apartment buildings to the south, (3) the Scarsdale Avenue commercial corridor and the Overhill residential neighborhood, and (4) the Edgemont neighborhood just west of the Bronx River Parkway in Greenburgh (see Figure 8).

Scarsdale Clock Village Center and Scarsdale Station

The Village Center is an attractive neighborhood-scale retail shopping district. The major buildings in the Village Center were constructed in the early 1920s, and were designed to be high quality and attractive spaces that would project the image of Scarsdale and blend with the village character. The East Parkway and Harwood buildings were the first to be constructed in the Village Center, and are four-story buildings with ground floor retail and commercial spaces with apartments and offices above. These grand buildings were constructed with brick and stone and are designed in the Tudor style. As such, these buildings set the architectural standard for the rest of the Village Center development, which was constructed in the middle to late 1920s in the Tudor style. Scarsdale train station Source: iridetheharlemline.com (1902) North of Spencer Place is single-story commercial development with grocery, retail, and restaurant spaces, and the village post office. North of that is Christie Place, an age-restricted mixed-use development with multi-family residential, ground-floor retail, and below-ground parking. Christie Place was designed in a similar yet modernized Tudor style and was completed in 2008. North of Christie Place is the Scarsdale Chateaux, a landscaped multi-family residential development with eight buildings in total. Areas to the east of these developments include single-family residential, two multi-family developments, and Chase Park.

Along the western boundary of the historic Village Center development is the Scarsdale Metro-North Railroad train station. West of the train tracks and north of Popham Road are two commercial developments. The first is a small, single-story retail strip that faces the recently renovated Constitution Circle and the entrance to the train station. West of that development is a large, contemporary commercial building that fronts Popham Road. This development includes retail, restaurant, and private recreation facilities. This development includes parking underneath the units, made available due to the site’s topography and access from an adjacent road.

19 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Sherwood Pl Walbrooke Rd Crane Rd Single Family Residential Aqueduct Dr

Multi-family Residential Scarsdale Chateaux Mixed Use

Commercial Chase Rd Community Facility Christie Place Parks and Open Space Christie Place Transportation

Parking Woodland Pl East Pkwy Post

Metro North Railroad O ce Vacant Bronx River Pkwy Spencer Pl Chase 0 125 250 500 Train Park Feet Station Harwood Harwood Ct Building East Parkway Edgemont Rd Ardsley Rd Building

Study Area Popham Rd Autenreith Rd

Lynwood Rd Town of Greenburgh City of Yonkers

Freightway ScarsdaleAve Garage Lockwood Rd

Bronx River Pkwy Scarsdale Rd

Circle Rd

Scarsdale Commons Overhill Rd

City of Yonkers Town of Eastchester

Village of Scarsdale Town of Eastchester

Wright Pl

Garth Rd

Brown Rd School Ln Figure 8: Study Area Land Use Brambach Ave Source: Westchester County, BFJ Planning

Alida St

Source: Westchester County, BFJ Planning Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Scarsdale Avenue Corridor

The Scarsdale Avenue corridor, to the east across the train tracks from the Freightway site, has a mix of single-story buildings including restaurants, offices, a hardware store, the Scarsdale Teen Center, and two gas stations. Of these structures, only those at the northern end, where Scarsdale Avenue meets Popham Road ,are designed in the Tudor style which is featured prominently in the rest of the Village Center. There are two and three story mixed-use buildings along the corridor just south of the Freightway site.

Parking on the east side of the road is limited to two-hour parallel parking spaces that serve the stores along the road. The west side of Scarsdale Avenue the road has a 0.49 acre Village-owned commuter parking lot parallel to the Metro-North tracks with 77 parking spaces.

The Scarsdale Avenue corridor was one of the key opportunity sites identified in the 2010 Update to the Village Center Component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states that, in the long term, consideration could be given to encouraging restaurants and mixed-use buildings through zoning changes. One constraint to new development is the amount of available parking and its close adjacency to the Overhill residential neighborhood, above and to the east of the area. The Plan cites the potential for shared parking between the Scarsdale Avenue commercial corridor and the Freightway site.

Caption to come (Garth Road Corridor) Garth Road Corridor

The Garth Road Corridor is located to the west of the Freightway site, and runs parallel to the Bronx River from Popham Road in the north, into the Town of Eastchester to the south. The northern part of Garth Road features two and three-story mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-oriented retail and restaurants on the ground floor. The properties on Garth Road directly adjacent to the Freightway site are privately owned. Businesses include convenience stores, barbershops and beauty stores, cleaners, restaurants, services, and boutique retail. As with other buildings in Scarsdale, many buildings along Garth Road are designed in the Tudor style.

Scarsdale Commons, a contemporary five-story multi-family building designed in modified Tudor style, is sited just south of the Freightway Site in the Town of Eastchester. Further south there is single story retail on both sides of Garth Road. South of the retail corridor are five to seven-story multi-family apartment buildings, many of which date to pre-WWII. These older multi-family buildings are classically designed in the Tudor style. The multi-family neighborhood along Garth Road is generally attractive and well-landscaped. Parking for these residential units is provided in an angled parking median along Garth Road, within the buildings themselves and in additional parking areas along Greyrock Road that parallel the Metro-North Railroad tracks.

21 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

2.3: EXISTING ZONING

The Freightway site and surrounding area is zoned in five general categories: Planned Unit Development, Village Center Retail, Village Center Office, single-family housing, and multi-family housing. These categories are further distinguished by their allowable bulk and density, which is specified by a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). These subcategories are shown in Table 7 below. The complete zoning regulations can be found on the Town’s website (Scarsdale.com).

Table 7: Zoning Bulk and Height Regulations Zoning Description Floor Area Max. Height Code Ratio (FAR) Single Family Residence – A3 0.145-0.35 35 feet 10,000 Sq. Feet Minimum Lot PUD – 1.0 Planned Unit Development – 1.0 1.0** ~69 feet* PUD – 1.4 Planned Unit Development – 1.4 1.4** 4 stories, 46 feet RES C Residence C - 4 stories, 46 feet VCO – 0.8 Village Center Office – 0.8 0.8 2 Stories, 35 feet VCR – 0.8 Village Center Retail – 0.8 0.8 1 story, 20 feet VCR – 1.0 Village Center Retail – 1.0 1.0 2 stories, 35 feet VCR – 2.0 Village Center Retail – 2.0 2.0 4 stories, 46 feet * Building height is defined as 204 feet above sea level in areas south of Popham Road but is 184 feet in other areas. 204 feet corresponds to the height of the Harwood Building in the Village Center. ** The zoning code allows for incentive density increases for the PUD zones. The level of incentive density increase would be determined by the specific public benefit features, as outlined in the Village’s zoning code (Section 310.28.1). The Freightway site is within a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone, which covers the study area west of Scarsdale Avenue and East Parkway, and the Christie Place site. The PUD zone that includes Freightway and other development west of the Scarsdale Avenue/East Parkway has an FAR limit of 1.0, and Christie Place has an FAR limit of 1.4. FAR controls the ratio of square feet that can be built on the site. For example a FAR of 1.0 means that you can multiply one times the lot size to obtain the total square footage that can be built on the site.

The PUD 1.0 zone allows for a mix of uses, including retail stores, personal service establishments, restaurants, banks, healthcare offices, and residences. If a building in this zone contains residences, the allowed other uses are limited to the ground floor, and ten percent of the residential floor area must be for senior citizen housing with priority for Scarsdale residents. Development in PUD 1.0 zone may not have more than ten percent of floor area devoted to non-residential use. Parking is allowed in this zone by special permit.

The PUD zones offer some design and bulk flexibility over the other districts. According to the Village’s zoning code (Section 310.28.1), the PUD zones are unique because they encompass the largest sites and represent the most significant opportunity for basic public benefit purposes in the Village Center Area.

22 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

A3 A3 Sherwood Pl Walbrooke Rd Crane Rd A3 - 10,000 SQ FT A3 A3 A5 - 5,000 SQ FT RES C Residence C Scarsdale Chateaux RES C Chase Rd Planned Unit Development 1.0 Aqueduct Dr A3 Christie Place A3 Planned Unit Development 1.4 PUD-1.4

Village Center Office 0.8 Christie Place Village Center Office 2.0 Woodland Pl Village Center Retail 0.8 VCR-0.8 Post Metro North Railroad O ce

Bronx River Pkwy Village Center Retail 1.0 Spencer Pl Chase Train Village Center Retail 2.0 Park Station VCR-2.0 VCR-2.0 0 125 250 500 A3 Feet Harwood HarwoodCt PUD-1.0 VCR-2.0 Building

East Pkwy

Edgemont Rd East Parkway VCR-0.8 Ardsley Rd Building RES C A3 Study Area Popham Rd Autenreith Rd

Lynwood Rd VCO-2.0 Town of Greenburgh PUD-1.0 Freightway RES C Garage City of Yonkers A3 VCO-0.8 A3

ScarsdaleAve VCR-1.0 Lockwood Rd

Scarsdale Rd A3

Circle Rd

Scarsdale City of Yonkers Commons Overhill Rd

Town of Eastchester

A3 Village of Scarsdale Town of Eastchester A3 A3

Wright Pl

Garth Rd

A5 A3

Brown Rd A5 School Ln Figure 9: Village Center Zoning Brambach Ave Source: Westchester County, BFJ Planning A5

Alida St A5

23 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

The PUD 1.0 zone limits structure height to 204 feet above sea level, which is the height of the Harwood Building in the Village Center. This corresponds to an approximate height limit of 69 feet from the center of the Open Lot. While there are no established setback requirements for the Freightway site, the PUD allows the Planning Board to establish setbacks for the purposes of safety of pedestrian and traffic circulation. The Planning Board may also require landscaping to screen the development from neighboring properties and streets.

Village Center Office zoning is located on the east side of Scarsdale Avenue, across from the Freightway site. This zone has an FAR of 0.8, Harwood Building and allows for varying uses, including retail stores, personal service establishments, restaurants, banks, healthcare offices, service stations, real estate offices, and public and semipublic uses. This zone allows accessory drive-up facilities, but only if the Planning Board determines the facilities can be safely and properly located on the site.

Village Center Retail zones contain the historic village center and buildings between Spencer Place and Christie Place, along Chase Road near the intersection with Popham Road, and those west of the Freightway site along Garth Road. The historic development bounded by Chase Road, Popham Road, East Parkway, and Spencer Place has a FAR of 2.0, the block between Spencer Place and Christie Place and the east side of Chase Road have an FAR of 0.8, and the properties along Garth Road have an FAR of 1.0. Village Center Retail (VCR) 2.0 and 1.0 zones allow retail, restaurants, and personal service establishments on the ground floor and allow the same uses plus professional, healthcare, business, administrative, and residential uses on the upper floors. Village Center Retail 0.8 zones allow the same uses as VCR 2.0 and 1.0 with the exception of residences, professional, healthcare, business, and administrative uses.

Review Process

Any proposed development would be subject to site plan review by the Planning Board. To ensure building design is in keeping with Village character, all development applications in the Village Center are referred to the Board of Architectural Review (BAR) for additional input. The Village Center is designated as a “special design district” in the Village Code because of its “distinctive architectural style, its historical pattern and character of building development, its open spaces and vistas and its role as an important community focal point.” Design guidelines are more explicit than for other districts; elements include architectural character, landscaping, and streetscape.

Scarsdale’s zoning code includes Fair and Affordable Housing regulations which mandate that in a multi-family residential development with ten or more units, 10 percent of the units must be affordable. The affordable units must remain affordable for 50 years, and can be offered either for lease or purchase. Purchase prices must be affordable for a purchaser with an income 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) adjusted for family size of Westchester County. Rental prices must be affordable to a lease-holder with an income 60

24 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale percent of the AMI.4 The zoning code mandates that no preferences shall be utilized to prioritize any income-eligible tenants or purchasers for these units. Additionally, the code requires that 10 percent of the residential floor area be reserved for senior citizen housing with priority for Scarsdale residents.

Freightway Site Build-out under Existing Zoning

As described above, the Freightway Site is located within PUD 1.0 zone, which has a FAR of 1.0. The 1.0 FAR was reduced in 2001 from 2.0 to limit development due to concerns at the time about the potential for overdevelopment on the site. The Village recognizes that zoning changes that permit more density than what is currently allowed in PUD 1.0 may be needed in order to achieve a development that satisfies the vision outlined in this study.

Under the existing PUD 1.0 zoning, 103,673 square feet of buildable space is allowed on 2.38 acres (103,673 sq ft) which includes the existing garage, the surface parking lot north of the garage (Open lot), and the surface parking lot south of the garage (Beatty Lot)5. The build-out total does not include the Beatty Lot land within the Town of Eastchester.

The zoning regulations do not have standardized setbacks or lot coverage regulations that would otherwise limit development. The building coverage would be determined by the number of stories built on the site and the maximum FAR of 1.0. A building of only one story could theoretically cover the whole site. A building of two stories would use up all the available by FAR by covering 50% of the site. Thus, taller buildings would have less lot coverage. The effective height of 69 feet would effectively limit the number of stories to five or six depending on floor to ceiling heights; the taller the building is, the less land area it would cover. For example, a one-story building could cover the entire site (103,673 sq ft). A two-story building could cover half of the site, and a three-story building could cover a third of the site, etc.

Under the existing zoning envelope of 103,673 sq ft, a number of different development scenarios could be conceived. The PUD-1 zone limits non-residential to 10 percent of the floor area or 10,367 sq ft retail, personal services or office. The remaining 93,306 sq ft could be developed for residential units. The size of the units would dictate the number. A mix of smaller units of one and two bedrooms (perhaps 1,000 sq ft/unit) could generate approximately 93 units whereas larger unit ranges of 2-3 bedroom sizes (perhaps 1,600 sq ft/unit) would generate approximately 58 units. The market place will tend to determine unit size as well as the market segment (empty nesters and/or millennials).

4 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sets income limits annually for the Area Median Income (AMI) for each Metropolitan Statisti- cal Area (MSA). In 2017, The 80% AMI for a 4 person household was $89,120. Source: Westchester County 2017 Area Median Income (AMI), Sales & Rent Limits https://homes.westchestergov.com/images/stories/pdfs/17IncomeGuide3.pdf. 5 The Village controls 0.84 acres of air rights over the Metro-North railroad tracks. If 1 a development planned to utilize this space, /2 of the 0.84 acres may be counted in calculating the gross floor area permitted on the lot, provided that construction is actually proposed over such railroad track area or such area above the tracks is permanently preserved for open space purposes.

25 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

2.4: TRANSPORTATION (PARKING, ACCESS AND CIRCULATION)

One of the defining characteristics in the Village of Scarsdale is its convenient access to New York City via the Metro-North railroad. The Freightway site is an integral part of the downtown area due to the fact that it is the largest parking facility in the Village. The vast majority of the site’s 601 parking spaces are used for commuter parking during the work week. Some of the on-site parking is utilized for the Garth Road retail corridor. Many pedestrians that live along Garth Road also walk through the site to access the train station. As such, the site is a very busy place in the morning and evening hours and is an essential node in the transportation network. This section describes the existing conditions and issues related to parking, access, and circulation around Scarsdale train station the site.

Metro-North Railroad

Railroad service was first provided in Scarsdale in 1846 by the New York and Harlem Railroad6. The MTA Metro-North Railroad has provided rail service since 1983 on the Harlem Line which links Wassaic in Dutchess County to Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in Manhattan. The Harlem line connects Scarsdale to New York City, White Plains and other towns in the Bronx River Valley7.

Commuter service between Manhattan and Scarsdale is frequent and fast. During the work week, morning peak-hour trains leave Scarsdale beginning at 4:59 AM until 9:14 AM. The time between departures varies; the longest time between trains is 29 minutes, and the shortest is nine minutes.

Some trains have local service that stops at each station along the route, while others are express, proceeding to Harlem-125th Street Station and to GCT. The express trains take 20 minutes to get to Harlem- 125th Street station and just over 30 minutes to get to GCT. There are nine express trains in the morning (between 6 AM and 9:15 AM) and six in the evening leaving GCT (between 5 PM and 7:15 PM)8. Local trains take approximately 43 minutes to reach GCT.

Westchester Bee-Line Bus

Four Westchester Bee-Line buses service the study area and the Scarsdale Train Station. Route 64 and Route 65 are commuter routes that terminate at the Scarsdale Train Station and only run at peak hours (see Figure 10). Bus Route 65 is a commuter route that travels between the Scarsdale Train Station and the Green Knolls neighborhood west of

6 “A Brief History of Scarsdale,” Scarsdale Historical Society, Web. , Accessed September 8, 2017 7 “Metro-North: A History of Accomplishment,” Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Web., http://web.mta.info/mnr/html/mnrHIstory1.html> Accessed September 11, 2017 8 Harlem Line Schedules, Effective June 4, 2017 - October 7, 2017, Web.. Ac- ceessed September 8, 2017

26 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Sherwood Pl Walbrooke Rd Crane Rd Aqueduct Dr

Scarsdale Chateaux

Chase Rd

Christie Place

Woodland Pl

East Pkwy Post

Metro North Railroad O ce Bronx River Pkwy Spencer Pl

Chase Train Park Station Harwood Harwood Ct Building

Edgemont Rd East Parkway Ardsley Rd Building 65

Popham Rd 63 Autenreith Rd

Lynwood Rd Town of Greenburgh City of Yonkers 64 63 Freightway ScarsdaleAve Garage Lockwood Rd 66 Scarsdale - White Plains Bronx River Pkwy Scarsdale Rd 63 (Part-Time)

Scarsdale - White Plains 63Circle Rd (Full-Time)

Scarsdale Scarsdale - White Plains Commons 64 (Commuter) Overhill Rd Scarsdale - White Plains City of Yonkers 65 (Commuter) Town of Eastchester Dobbs Ferry-Scarsdale 66 -Larchmont-New Rochelle Village of Scarsdale (Full-Time) Town of Eastchester 0 125 250 500 Feet

63 Wright Pl

Garth Rd

Brown Rd School Ln Brambach Ave

Alida St

Figure 10: Bus Service

27 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

the Bronx River, serving the Edgemont neighborhood to the west. This route was added recently to meet customer demand despite the fact that county-wide ridership has been in a slight decline since 20139. Route 63 runs north/south between the Scarsdale Train Station and the White Plains Train station. Route 66 runs east/west connecting Dobbs Ferry, Scarsdale, Larchmont, and New Rochelle while serving Ardsley, Heathcote, and Weaver Street.

Westchester Bee-Line fares are $2.75 for one ride, and $1.35 for one Senior/Disabled Reduced Fare ride. Bus fares include one free transfer to Bee-Line buses or New York City Transit Buses and Subways.

Open Lot Parking

The Freightway site is primarily utilized for commuter parking during the work week, and general parking on the weekend. The site is divided into three parking areas, each of which requires a permit to use. The parking lot closest to the Scarsdale Train Station is the “Open lot”, a surface parking lot reserved for valet parking (by ProPark). The Freightway Garage has valet parking on the first floor with self-parking on upper floors. The “Beatty Lot” south of the garage is a self-parked surface lot.

In total, the site contains 601 spaces but has an effective capacity with valet service of approximately 720 parking spaces. Pro-park has 120 spaces in the Open Lot and the lower level of the garage but can park between 200 and 250 cars, doubling the capacity of those areas.

Area Parking Capacity Open Lot 62 spaces Freightway Garage 474 parking spaces Beatty Lot 51 Spaces Angled parking adjacent to lot 14 spaces Total spaces 601 spaces Total with Pro-Park Valet ~720 spaces

The site also has eight-hour metered parking spaces west of the garage that do not require a permit. There is no dedicated bicycle parking on- site. Bike parking can be found next to the main entrance to the station in the Village Center and near the western entrance to the station north of Depot Place.

Approximately 465-480 cars park in the upper levels of the garage and the Beatty Lot on weekdays. An estimated 100 spaces are occupied on weekends. On Mondays through Thursdays, the number of available spaces in the garage generally ranges from 10-24. In the summer, the number of weekday vacant spaces rises to 70 spaces.

9 Westchester County Press Release, “Astorino Expands Bee-Line Bus Service to Meet Ridership Demands,” 2015, https://www3.westchestergov.com/news/74- all-releases/4851-astorino-expands-bee-line-bus-service-to-meet-ridership-demands, Web. Accessed August 30, 2017.

28 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Figure 11: Commuter Parking Locations Village of Scarsdale

29 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Approximately 665 permits were issued in 2017, with 126 of those to non-residents. Approximately 650 permits were sold in each of the prior three years. Commuters can purchase monthly valet parking permits for $145 (regular-size vehicle) or $170 (oversize vehicles), and residents of Scarsdale receive priority for these permits. When there is excess capacity, daily rates are available for $13 ($17 for oversize vehicles)10. While permits are required to park in the Freightway garage and Beatty Lot, they do not guarantee a space. Permits cost residents $1,000 annually and $550 semi-annually, and nonresidents $740 semi-annually. Anyone may purchase a summer seasonal permit for $350. Merchants and their employees may purchase annual and semi- annual permits for the same price as Village residents. Beatty Lot

Commuter parking permits are also available for the Christie Place Garage and the Village Hall Lot. There are also meter parking areas in the surrounding area intended for infrequent commuters. These meters are found on the west side of Scarsdale Avenue south of Popham Road, and along Depot Place. The Merchant Lot adjacent to the train station entrance on East Parkway offers long term parking for businesses and employees.

Financial Information for Existing Parking Facility The Village receives revenue from both the permit sales and licensing operation as shown below:

Permit sales Licensing Revenue 2016-17 $702,000 $169,000 2015-16 $676,000 $161,000 2014-15 $641,000 $156,000 2013-14 $640,000 $153,000

The operating expenses for the facility are estimated at $150,000 per year and cover management, maintenance, security personnel and cleaning services. Over the last 3 years the Village has spent approximately $215,000 on repairs and improvements such as deck and membrane repair, security system and elevator upgrades. In addition, the Village has been paying approximately $140,000 per year in debt service from bonds issued in prior years. Current budget projections estimate repair and maintenance expenses, LED lighting, and a new facade to be $2.3 million over the next five years.

Roadway Network

The Freightway site is bound by Popham Road to the north, the Metro-North Railroad to the east, the Scarsdale Commons residential development to the south, and Garth Road to the west. The site is

10 Valet permit rates ncreased from $140/$165 (regular size/oversize) per month to $145/$170 per month on November 1, 2017.

30 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale primarily served by Freightway, a 2-lane road off of Garth Road which provides access to the garage and the Open Lot (see Figure 12). The Beatty Lot is accessed by a one-way road from Garth Road into the lot. Cars exiting the Beatty Lot must go through the Freightway garage to access Garth Road.

The limited access and egress to the site creates a circulation issue in peak morning and evening hours. In the evening, commuters often race from the train to get their car first so they don’t get stuck in traffic. According to garage users, the wait to leave the lot can be anywhere from 5-20 minutes. The intersection of Garth Road and Freightway is another congestion point as it serves all cars exiting the site.

The Village has considered the possibility of widening Garth Road between the Freightway entrance and Popham road to alleviate congestion during the peak periods. This would entail widening the road to create an additional northbound left-turn lane. If this were to occur, the Village could consider replacing the on-street parking with angled parking to increase the amount of spaces for shoppers. The property on the west side of Garth Road is County-owned, part of the Bronx River Parkway Reservation. Village discussions with the County over a number of years regarding potential acquisition have not been successful.

Popham Road is an important east-west connector in the area and serves a majority of the vehicular traffic to and from the Freightway site. The intersection is also adjacent to the Bronx River Parkway southbound on/off ramp. Congestion at Popham Road and Garth Road has been a recurring issue for the Village. To improve this issue, in 2012, the Village completed a multi-year construction project to expand the Popham Road Bridge, which spans the Metro-North railroad. The reconstructed bridge added capacity and additional turn lanes on the eastbound side at the intersection of Popham Road and East Parkway/ Scarsdale Avenue and the westbound side at Garth Road.

Emergency access to the site is restricted to Freightway as the alley that leads to the Beatty Lot is too narrow for emergency vehicles. If an emergency occurred in the Beatty Lot, a fire hose could be run through the alley from a truck on Garth Road or from the alley adjacent to the Freightway garage.

Pedestrian Circulation

Figure 12 shows the common pedestrian routes between the Freightway site and the Scarsdale Train Station and the Village Center. Pedestrians can access the Freightway site from sidewalks along Garth Road, Popham Road, Freightway, and a pedestrian bridge that leads from the parking garage across the railroad to Scarsdale Avenue. There is also a pedestrian connection at the Open Lot to the New York City bound platform. Travelers arriving from New York City typically walk to

31 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Spencer Pl

BRONX RIVER PARKWAY RESERVATION BRONX RIVER PKWY Scarsdale Train Station

Harwood Ct

E Parkway

Depot Pl

Parking T

T Open Lot

T T

Overhill Rd

T T T

T T

T T T T

T T

Garth Rd Freightway

T T Parking Garage

T T

T Scarsdale Ave T

Beatty Lot

Legend

Parking Vehicular movements at site

Typical path of commuter walking through site

0100200 200 Feet

Source: Westchester County, BFJ Planningsource Figure 12: VehicularG and Pedestrian Circulation ra y ro c k R 32 d Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale and through the site via the pedestrian overpass or by crossing over the tracks at the Scarsdale Train Station to the New York City bound platform.

Many residents along Garth Road walk through the Freightway site en route to and from the station. Some residents park in lots adjacent to the railroad in the Town of Eastchester (behind Garth Road) and walk to the station via a sidewalk adjacent to the railroad. This sidewalk passes behind the Freightway garage and connects to the southbound platform. Other residents along Garth Road cut through the Beatty Lot rather than walking to Popham Road. These pedestrians typically walk through the Beatty Lot alley, which does not have sidewalks. Pedestrians also tend Pedestrian Bridge to Scarsdale Avenue to walk through the garage to access the southbound platform or the pedestrian overpass. In this way, the garage is a significant link for both motorists and pedestrians.

There are several access points between the Freightway Site and the Village Center. Pedestrians typically use the pedestrian overpass at the Freightway site or the bridge at the train station (via the southbound platform). Pedestrians can also use sidewalks along the Popham Road Bridge which is the only ADA accessible route. The reconstruction of the bridge has provided a significant improvement in pedestrian access and is an effective extension of the Village Center sidewalk system.

Garth Road is a relatively friendly street for pedestrians. The street and sidewalks are generally very well maintained with attractive materials and continuous landscaping.

Transportation Issues

Congestion during peak commuting hours Pedestrians crossing through Beatty Lot Congestion at the site and along adjacent roads was an ongoing concern expressed by commuters, merchants and adjacent residents during outreach conducted for this study. The single point of egress from the site at Freightway and Garth Road leads to congestion in the evening peak hours, and the rush of vehicles and sporadic traffic flow leads to problematic conflicts between motorists and pedestrians. This congestion is largely limited to evening peak periods. The recently improved roadways generally function at acceptable levels during the rest of the service day.

Popham Road is an important east/west route in Scarsdale, and its intersections with Garth Road and Scarsdale Avenue receive high vehicle volumes. Commuters also all exit the train at the same time, and thus all reach their parked vehicles in close succession. The Freightway/Garth Road intersection is very close to Popham Road (less than 200 feet), so any congestion at that intersection directly affects egress from the Freightway site and vice versa. Access to the site during the morning commute does not seem to be as big of an issue as the

33 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

evening commute because there is an additional entry-only access point at the Beatty Lot and the traffic tends to be staggered across a longer time period.

Spillover Commuter Parking in Adjacent Areas

Sufficient parking was the most significant issue mentioned inthe public outreach for this study. Interviews with local merchants, residents and commuters revealed that commuter parking in the area is limited and the need for parking has spilled over onto Garth Road and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. On-street parking on Garth Road is typically heavily utilized by merchants, employees and shoppers. Some commuters reportedly use the Garth Road on-street

spaces, taking the risk of a ticket once the meter runs out. This is a Driving into Scarsdale. Views of arrival into the concern for merchants who rely on convenient vehicular access for Village Center shoppers as part of their business. Other residents reported that when some merchants and their employees cannot find parking near their store, they park along nearby residential streets in Greenburgh or Eastchester, also taking the risk of a parking ticket. Commuters also park their cars in these adjacent residential areas. Residents of multi-family buildings on Garth Road in Eastchester related similar experiences where commuters occupy spaces that are non-regulated after 10 AM. This is especially problematic considering the limited supply of residential parking along Garth Road.

34 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Safety

Some commuters expressed concerns about safety at the Freightway site. Despite these concerns, the Scarsdale Police Department reports that crime has been very infrequent ever since the arrival of valet attendants at the garage. Nevertheless, perceptions of safety can be improved by enhancing lighting and the condition of the lot. Security cameras are on-site, monitored by the Police Department.

Parking for Employees and Shoppers

Comments from the public revealed that parking for merchants, employees, and shoppers is limited especially during the week. Parking supply along Garth Road is particularly limited. Some merchants park in private spaces behind their stores, and others pay to park in the Freightway garage. Parking is free at the Freightway site on weekends so the issue is primarily during weekdays.

Merchants suggested a few different parking solutions to relieve the pressure on Garth Road. A popular idea was adding more parking in the grassed area west of Garth Road and adjacent to the Bronx River. This land is Westchester County parkland and it is unlikely to be developed. Others included changing the amount of time allowed by parking meters and adding more parking to the Freightway site designed specifically for merchants and shoppers. Others suggested that any development should be required to build more parking for shoppers as well as commuters.

Problematic Intersections

Popham Road handles significant east-west vehicular traffic. The intersections at Garth Road and at Scarsdale Avenue have both been described by the Police Chief and by residents as problematic. This can be attributed to the heavy volume of cars during peak periods, the short queuing area for turns, the wide crossing distance for pedestrians, and the slightly irregular geometries of the intersection. However, both intersections were rebuilt as part of the Garth Road bridge reconstruction project in 2012 and greatly improved both vehicle and pedestrian movement.

35 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

2.5: URBAN DESIGN

Scarsdale’s Village Center’s urban design character, indeed its sense of place, is defined by three important elements: its urban structure; its building-street relationship; and its architectural styling, massing and materiality. Collectively, these elements work together to create a whole greater than the sum of its parts. This makes Scarsdale’s Village Center one of the most delightful and walkable downtowns in the New York Metropolitan area.

Chase Park Urban Structure: Generally, when people think of what makes somewhere “a place” they usually mention the character of buildings, their architectural styling, and the attention to detail presented in the streetscape furnishing, lighting and signage. Certainly, these observed design elements are important operators in creating a pleasant built environment (i.e. creating a sense of place). Less visible, but equally important to sense of place, is the urban structure of an area, the spatial pattern of the fabric of blocks and streets, as well as the buildings that exhibit a close relationship to the streets, sidewalks, and open spaces. Urban structure is important in establishing sense of place because, when done well, it creates an identifiable spatial structure.

Scarsdale’s urban structure is unique, even among the many beautiful railroad villages in the region. The Village Center’s street network is bounded by Crane Road to the north, Chase Road to the east, Popham Road to the south and East Parkway to the west. Organizationally, the Village Center is structured around two primary streets/corridors: War Memorial Park at Boniface Circle East Parkway (running north-south along the Metro-North Railroad tracks north of Popham Road) and Popham Road (running east-west and serving as one of the most heavily used east-west route across Westchester). The majority of architecturally (Tudor) styled buildings that comprise the Village Center lie to the east and north of these two primary roads, although several lower-scale, but equally evocatively designed buildings with commercial uses line the southern frontage along Popham Road between Scarsdale Avenue and Chase/Overhill Roads. These lower scale buildings paired with the taller ones that line the northern frontage along this same stretch of Popham Road establish Concert at Chase Park somewhat of a gateway into the Village Center. Indeed for many who travel east and west across this portion of Westchester County, the corner of Popham Road with East Parkway/Scarsdale Avenue marks arrival into the Village Center, but more could be done to improve this gateway.

Building-Street Relationship: Throughout much of the Village Center, buildings occupy their lots fully with almost zero front setbacks and active frontages along the pedestrian and vehicular right of way. This level of consistency, along with the design of the buildings, including an appropriate rhythm of windows and shop fronts, carefully chosen materials, proportions and details establish a comfortable scale along the pedestrian right of way. In fact, the relative height of Tudor Buildings and Scarsdale Clock

36 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale some of the buildings in the Village Center is perceptually minimized as a result of the care that is taken in this respect. The observed building-street relationship creates an especially strong public realm in the Village Center, where buildings, sidewalks (many of which are fairly wide in various locations) and streets work in unison to create a strong sense of place. These conditions, complimented by a clear hierarchy in the street network and key open green spaces, ensure that the streets successfully operate as public space. The net result is that any first time visitor to Scarsdale would have no trouble understanding that East Parkway and Spencer Place form the backbone of the public realm in Village Center, and that these primary streets are intelligently supported by a network of secondary pathways (and spaces) formed by Christie Place, Boniface Circle, Harwood Court and Chase Road. This level of readability is a very traditional trait of strong downtowns, and something that should be reinforced as Scarsdale continues to grow. These conditions are less observable in other places in the county, and

Lower buildings

Rustication in lower stories

Harwood Building Architectural details

37 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

thus contribute significantly (as much as does the more easily readable Tudor-styled architecture) to the identity of Scarsdale’s Village Center.

The urban structure discussed above is complemented by two key open spaces (Chase Park and the War Memorial Park at Boniface Circle) and attractive and plentiful street furniture. Chase Park serves as the Village Center’s “green,” providing not only a place for people to relax in a natural setting but also a gathering place for music and programmed public events. An equally important element of open space and public memory is the War Memorial Park at Boniface Circle. While both of these spaces contribute to and balance the Village Center’s street-oriented public realm, their location away from where much of Garth Road Apartments the activity occurs means that they operate differently than would a traditional public green, which would normally be located at the center of activity and serve as an anchor.

Something that has appeared in previous schemes for the Freightway Site (and mentioned by community members participating in the current study of the site) is potentially creating an additional public green on the southwest corner of Popham Road and Scarsdale Avenue. This would balance Chase Park and formalize the gateway to the Village Center along Popham Road. It would also provide an opportunity to formally connect the Freightway Site to the Village Center, and make more relevant the Village Center to the Bronx River Reservation by Garth Road Environment providing a more complete network of open green spaces from Village to River.

Architectural Styling, Massing and Materiality: With its strong and consistent Tudor-styled buildings, Scarsdale’s Village Center stands apart architecturally in the region. But it is not only the Tudor styling that establishes this fact, but also the stylistic and material consistency Christie Place paired with an attention to detail that helps set it apart. This not only helps reinforce sense of place, but also creates a desirable situation where a variety of building heights can exist harmoniously, without feeling too dense. Almost all buildings in the Village Center expertly incorporate a pleasing level of rustication on their lower stories, that dictates the order of materiality and detailing with heavier looking materials and architectural detailing on the lower levels and lighter ones above. This establishes a sense of scale at the ground level that is comfortable to people. While some buildings, like the Harwood Building, reach to four stories (not including the peaks of the pitched roofs), the scale established by the use of rustication, materials, and traditional architectural vocabulary at the ground level, including sign bands and awnings, transom windows, and residential entranceways on the street, etc., effectively works to diminish the perception of building height. This provides a level of consistency amongst the diversity of building heights and densities, and as such contributes strongly to Scarsdale’s sense of place. Lower height buildings in the Village Center also do their part by employing similar strategies – in many cases, the bases of these

Tudor Buildings

38 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale one- and two-story buildings mimic the taller buildings stylistically and materially.

More broadly, building heights in the built context just beyond the Village Center, including the existing Freightway Garage and the pre-war Tudor apartment buildings along Garth Road, also contribute in setting the tone for an appropriate and consistent building height of about four to five stories. The Freightway garage has five stories of parking without the additional height of a roof, but is set at a significantly lower elevation, approximately 20 feet below the elevation of East Parkway. Apartment buildings along Garth Road average six to seven stories and employ many of the same traditional design strategies observed in the Village Center, which again works to ameliorate building height to the observer. Despite their height, the buildings and public realm along Garth Road feel surprisingly pleasing to the pedestrian.

Quality materials in pavement

Zero front setbacks and active frontages with appropriate rythm

Quality materials. Strong pedestrian environment

39 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

The heights described above should help inform any potential development of the Freightway site. The Harwood building, the Freightway garage itself and the Garth Road apartments set contextual height limits for future development.

Consistency in the application of sound design principles and complimentary styling was identified in the 2010 Update to the Village Center Component to the Master Plan, when it was mentioned, “[that] while the Harwood Building is not a designated landmark, it is a design model to be emulated.” From an urban design perspective, this suggests that the design strategies observed in this building are elemental to the Village Center and can therefore be emulated in contemporary buildings. Christie Place Condominiums provides evidence that such is the case. The use of rustication techniques and high quality materials and detailing help provide scale and weight to buildings, and this allows for a variety of building heights and densities to effectively operate harmoniously. This one of the key touchstones of place in Scarsdale and should be replicated in future development.

The final element contributing to a strong sense of place in the Village Center is the attractive and plentiful high quality street furniture and streetscape design. The Village has placed attention on creating an attractive environment, with details ranging from traditionally styled benches and lighting to attractive planting and high quality materials (granite curbs and bluestone paving). Together with the urban structure, architectural massing and styling, the highly appointed public realm works to complete a satisfying composition. Each of these elements plays an important role in supporting a sense of place in Scarsdale, and should be acknowledged as future development is considered.

Christie Place

40 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

2.6: CASE STUDIES

As part of the development of this visioning process, the Freightway Steering Committee toured two developments in nearby villages that were deemed to be attractive comparable developments. One is a condominium development in Bronxville called Villa BXV and the second is a rental building in Tuckahoe called Quarry Place. A third comparable, Christie Place in Scarsdale, which the committee was already familiar with, was also discussed. Avalon, Bronxville

Villa BXV Bronxville, NY (Across from Bronxville Train Station) Built in 2017

Program: The 53-unit four-story condominium complex includes one, two and three-bedroom residences ranging in size from 1,300 square feet to more than 2,000 square feet. The prices range from $1.3 million to $3.8 million for penthouses with rooftop terraces (approximately $1,000/square foot). Issues Relating to Scarsdale Freightway Study: ▪▪ Classic Mediterranean styling fits comfortably with surrounding architecture of Bronxville ▪▪ The 309-space parking garage includes 203 spaces allocated for village residents and merchants. Commuters can purchase an annual permit for $1,500. ▪▪ Required extensive coordination with both the Village in terms Villa BXV, Bronxville of monitoring truck traffic to and from the site and Metro- North. ▪▪ Amenities: Direct access to Bronxville Station platform, state- of-the-art fitness center, residents’ clubroom and landscaped courtyards.

41 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Quarry Place Tuckahoe, NY (less than ½ mile from Tuckahoe Train Station) Built in 2014

Program: The 108-unit four-story two building apartment complex includes 3,500 square feet of street-level retail space. There are sixty-one one-bedroom and forty-seven two-bedroom units in the two structures. Apartments range from around $2,630 - $5,170 per month.

Issues Relating to Scarsdale Freightway Study: ▪▪ The $50 million project is expected to generate approximately $100,000 in property tax revenue for Tuckahoe. ▪▪ Amenities: Quarry Place includes a fitness center with state- of-the-art exercise equipment, yoga studio, a clubroom, an expansive outdoor terrace with gardens, a large freestanding stone fireplace pit and lounge, and an outdoor kitchen for private entertaining. The building also provides on-site parking and retail.

▪▪ The 169-space underground parking garage for residents will Quarry Place, Tuckahoe have a green roof. The property will have an additional 19 outdoor parking spaces.

Christie Place Scarsdale, NY (across street from Scarsdale Train Station) Built in 2008

Program: The 42-unit four-story two building apartment complex includes 12,000 square feet of street-level retail space. Condominiums are age restricted (55+). Units range from one-bedroom to two-bedrooms plus den. Large landscaped garden adjoins the two buildings. Issues Relating to Scarsdale Freightway Study:

▪▪ To build Christie Place, the developer was required to negotiate with both the municipality and neighboring parcels. ▪▪ The underground parking garage includes approximately 240 spaces for Scarsdale resident commuters. Density bonuses were granted as an incentive to provide public parking.

▪▪ The architecture is meant to blend in with the Tudor character Christie Place, Scarsdale of Scarsdale village.

42 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

3.0. PUBLIC OUTREACH

A primary objective for this study is to have a broad and meaningful public engagement process. Community outreach is a critical component of the Plan to ensure the vision for future development meets local needs and that it is supported to the maximum extent possible by residents, property owners, merchants, and the Village.

Freightway Steering Committee (FSC)

This planning effort began with the formation of the Freightway Steering Committee (FSC). The FSC is comprised of Village residents with a broad range of knowledge and expertise. In the spring of 2017, the FSC and the Village of Scarsdale selected a team of consultants to work on the Freightway Site Redevelopment Study. The consultant team, BFJ Planning, met with the FSC regularly to review project materials, discuss issues and opportunities relevant to the study, and plan for public engagement events. All FSC meetings were open to the public.

Citizen-Based Planning Process

The planning process included numerous opportunities for public input, including:

▪▪ Six meetings with the FSC, which were open to the public; ▪▪ Three public workshops; ▪▪ Three focus group meetings: ▪▪ Business owners, ▪▪ Residents, and ▪▪ Property owners and developers; ▪▪ Online survey; ▪▪ Commuter intercept survey; ▪▪ Merchant intercept survey; Project website ▪▪ Two walking tours; and ▪▪ Scarsdale High School students who are in a program called City 2.0, an urban studies class. The effort was also coordinated with Village staff and key stakeholders (i.e. Police, Fire and Public Works Departments) to gather information and solicit feedback on proposed recommendations.

43 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

All interested residents, property owners and other stakeholders were encouraged to attend and share their thoughts on the vision, goals and objectives for the site. Outreach by the FSC and Village involved press releases, flyers, emails from the Village, social media invitations, and other in-person means to spread the word. A full report of the public outreach meetings can be found in Appendix A: Public Outreach Meetings (also available at www.scarsdale.com/fw). A brief summary of the significant outreach efforts is below. Videos of the public workshops were posted on the Village’s website.

Public Workshops

The public workshops were structured to give participants a variety of ways to provide feedback on priorities for redevelopment of the site. Each meeting began with an introduction and public presentation with an overview of the site along with ideas and concerns as identified though the planning process. After the presentation, there was an interactive session for participants to provide feedback on work completed to date. All of the workshops featured different interactive exercises to engage the public in fresh ways and explore issues and opportunities in various levels of detail. All of the workshops were recorded by Scarsdale Public TV, and recordings are available online at www.scarsdale.com/fw. Written summaries of each workshop are found on the same website.

Public Workshop #1

The first public workshop was held on June 12th, 2017 at Village Public workshop #1: Presentation, interactive live poll, Hall. There were approximately 60 people in attendance. After an town hall question and answer session (top to bottom) introductory presentation, there was a 20-minute participatory exercise to “break the ice” and get participants to begin thinking about their vision and priorities for the site. Participants were asked to respond to an online poll from their phones and responses were shown in real time. Following the interactive exercise, the public was invited to participate in a town hall meeting where the floor was opened to the public to voice their concerns, recommendations, and feedback about the approach to the study. The initial feedback for the site was used to identify shared goals and strategies for redevelopment of the site. The feedback also helped to understand which issues are in need of further study.

44 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Workshop #2 The second public workshop was held on September 28th, 2017 at the Scarsdale Congregational Church. There were approximately 45 people in attendance. After presenting the existing conditions and an analysis of constraints, the consultants presented four preliminary redevelopment scenarios for the site. The conceptual scenarios were intended to show realistic approaches for how the site could be developed, taking into consideration phasing of construction and parking. After the presentation, participants broke into four roundtable groups tasked with discussing the four options for the site and other ideas that might be considered in the future. The intent was to have people look at the “big picture” rather than focus on nuances of site development (of which there are many). After 45 minutes of discussion, one volunteer from each group presented a summary of their roundtable discussion to the larger group.

Workshop #3 The third public workshop was held on November 13th, 2017 at the Scarsdale Teen Center. There were approximately 50 people in attendance. The presentation focused on the overall vision and principles for the site (i.e. for parking, land use and architecture, community benefits, and traffic). Updated redevelopment scenarios were also provided along with a discussion of anticipated costs and community benefits to the Village. After the presentation, participants were invited to speak directly with the consultants at five workstations; each focused on a particular theme. The work station categories were: (1) Vision, (2) Traffic and Parking, (3) Design / Architecture, (4) Mix of Uses / Community Benefits / Phasing, and (5) Impacts (Fiscal, Schools, Economy). The workstation conversations were very productive, showing overall support for the vision proposed. Some questions were raised regarding the potential impacts of development, specifically on school children, taxes, affordable housing and parking. It was agreed that these impacts would be incorporated into the vision. After the workstation discussions, participants convened for a town-hall style meeting where the floor was opened for the public to raise additional questions and provide feedback about the vision for the site developed so far .

Public workshop #3: Presentation, workstation Intercept Surveys discussions (top to bottom)

Survey of Commuters The Freightway site is used primarily for commuter parking. Therefore, it was important to discuss the potential redevelopment with those most familiar with the area. The purpose of the survey was to learn about how commuters feel about the Freightway site in its current form, and what their priorities were for the site. The survey asked short questions about how the site is used and what topics needed to be considered when creating a development vision.

45 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Intercept surveys were administered to 116 people during the morning commute on Tuesday, August 22, 2017. In general, respondents felt that parking was a very important issue at the Freightway site and in the Village Center overall. The greatest concerns about the site’s current condition were traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and maintenance of the site and structures. Many respondents wanted future development on the site to be dedicated fully to parking. Other respondents supported some kind of development as long as commuter parking would be retained. Requests for development included public space, restaurants or cafés, and convenience retail, but not at the expense of retail in the Village Center.

Survey of Merchants The purpose of the merchant survey was to understand what merchants thought of the site in its current form and what they thought it could be in the future. Merchants offer a unique perspective because their parking needs are different from that of a commuter, which the Freightway site primarily serves.

In-person surveys were conducted on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 with 21 people at various businesses along Garth Road and Scarsdale Avenue in the vicinity of the Freightway site. In general, short-term parking in the Village Center was the most frequently cited concern by merchants and employees in the area. Survey respondents felt that parking conditions seriously inhibited their business. Some merchants were able to secure parking in the Freightway garage or behind their stores, while other merchants and employees used metered parking in the area.

A more detailed summary of both intercept surveys is provided in Appendix A: Public Outreach Meetings.

Public workshop #2: Roundtable discussions, report back session (top to bottom)

46 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Online Survey

An electronic survey was posted online and was up for approximately two months (July 24th to September 15th, 2017). The survey was widely publicized through e-blasts, fl yers, social media (i.e. Facebook), and other means. 474 responses were received. 60 percent of respondents live in Scarsdale and 25 percent live within a half-mile but outside of the Village (i.e. in Edgemont or along Garth Road). Results from the survey are provided in Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries.

The purpose of the survey was to get preliminary feedback on issues and priorities for the Freightway site. There were 18 questions. While most of the questions were multiple choice, some asked for open ended responses. The responses, which were posted online, were presented at the public meeting and were considered and incorporated into the issues and opportunity analysis section of the fi nal report. A “word Survey question: What word(s) come to mind when you cloud” was generated for two of the questions to visually represent two think of the EXISTING Freightway Site? of the open-ended questions (see images to right and below). Words listed more frequently are shown with a larger font size.

Survey question: What word(s) come to mind when you think of what the Freightway Site SHOULD BE?

47 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

A summary of the survey results is provided in an appendix to this Respondents’ opinions in regards to report. Major takeaways from the survey are listed below: parking at the Feightway site No opinion 41% Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Not enough parking 37% ▪▪ Most (69%) live within the Village of Scarsdale. 31% live within The right amount of parking 15% a half mile of the Freightway site, either in the Village or an Too much parking 7% adjacent municipality. ▪▪ Most (65%) have lived in the area for over 10 years. ▪▪ About half of respondents live in a household with children; approximately one quarter are considered “empty-nesters.” ▪▪ About 90% were between the ages of 35 and 74. Travel Behavior of Respondents ▪▪ Almost 85% of people visit the Village Center at least 2-3 times per week. NO YES ▪▪ 40% usually commute to work by train from Scarsdale, 43% do not. ▪▪ The most common travel mode to the station is walking (32%) followed by driving (31%), getting dropped off (12%), and arriving by bus/shuttle (7%). 3.4% of respondents drive from less than half of a mile away. Survey Question: Would you support a residential or ▪▪ With regard to the Freightway site, about a quarter use the site mixed-use residential/commercial development at the Freightway site if doing so might help enhance the for commuter parking (with varied frequency), a quarter use Village Center? the site on occasion for local shopping/dining, and very few use the site to work locally.

Redevelopment Priorities for Respondents ▪▪ Many respondents (37%) felt there was not enough parking at the Freightway site. ▪▪ The top priorities for redevelopment of the site were: ▪▪ Maintain sufficient amount of parking spaces and improve parking accessibility

▪▪ Connect and integrate the site with the Village Center

▪▪ Improve appearance of the Village Center & train station

▪▪ Improve traffic circulation and accessibility (for car, pedestrian and bicycle) ▪▪ When asked to identify which type of housing would be most appropriate at the site, respondents preferred mixed-use (commercial first floor with residential or office above). ▪▪ Respondents showed support for multiple ground-floor non- residential uses such as restaurants, cafes, locally-owned stores, culture/entertainment, and bars. ▪▪ 66% of respondents would support a residential or mixed-use residential/commercial development at the Freightway site if doing so might help enhance the Village Center.

48 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

4.0. VISION FOR FREIGHTWAY SITE

Any future development at the Freightway site should be a signature project that positively contributes to the vibrancy of the Village Center while maintaining its current function as a commuter parking lot.

A vision and set of seven principles were developed to guide any future redevelopment of the site. The principles are based on feedback from the community at public workshops, walking tours, the public survey, focus groups, and other stakeholder meetings. They were also tested with the Freightway Steering Committee and Village staff (i.e. Police, Fire, and Public Works Departments).

Principle 1 Improve$ Parking and Circulation Principle 2. Ensure that public benefits are achieved by any development

Principle 3. Ensure contextual development (scale, bulk, height)

Principle 4 Encourage mixed-use development supportive of Village Center

$ Principle 5. Connect$$ and integrate the Freightway Site with the Village Center Principle 6. Include environmentally sustainable development

Principle 7. Plan for the long term future, within a reasonably practicable $$ time horizon $ 49 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Principle 1: Improve Parking and Circulation. $ 1.1. Maintain number of existing parking spots and add shop- per/merchant parking.

The site should maintain its function as a commuter parking facility. New development should replace existing parking as well as provide for its own parking needs (i.e. for residential and commercial uses). New development should also consider additional short-term parking spaces for shoppers and merchants.

1.2 Improve the commuter parking facility.

The Freightway lot is unsightly and detracts from the Village Center’s character. If the existing garage is not torn down, it should be rehabilitated and improved so it functions better and is more harmonious within the Village Center context.

1.3 Minimize inconvenience during construction period for those who use the parking facility and on nearby neighborhoods.

Interim impacts on users should be minimized through various strategies such as phasing of site redevelopment, valet parking to increase capacity of existing parking, stackers, and subsidizing ridesharing services (i.e. Uber and Lyft). For example, if the development were phased, the first stage could include building 2-3 levels of parking at the Open Lot (below the grade at Popham Road). Valet parking the entire Freightway garage would help to maintain capacity in the interim period. A developer would need to provide a detailed plan showing the phasing of development.

1.4 Encourage creation of new connections to Scarsdale Avenue to improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation.

Congestion in/out of the garage is heavy during the peak commuting hours. Opportunities to improve vehicular and pedestrian access and egress from the site should be considered as part of a new development. One possibility to alleviate congestion could be the development of a vehicular ramp from the site over the Metro-North railroad tracks to Scarsdale Avenue, while maintaining pedestrian safety and access to and across the site.

1.5 Encourage strategies that can reduce parking demand.

Various strategies can alleviate parking demand including the use of shared cars, such as Zipcars, the provision of drop off areas for taxis and on-demand services such as Uber and Lyft, as well as bicycle parking/storage areas. In a rental residential building, there may also be some possibility for shared parking among residential, commercial, and commuter uses which have different peak usage periods.

50 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Principle 2: Ensure that public benefits are achieved by any development

2.1 Ensure that the development is fiscally responsible for the Village.

There are many public benefits that can be achieved on the site. First is the fiscal benefit to the Village. New development should be able to provide a positive fiscal impact to both the Village tax base and the school district. The mixed-use development recommended is not anticipated to negatively impact either of these institutions, as uses of its type are generally a fiscal positive. Commercial uses tend to generate more tax revenues than they require in municipal services. Residential uses are expected to pay $ more in tax revenue than they demand in expenditures for school or municipal services.

2.2 Encourage other public benefits.

It is recognized that developing the underutilized site has the potential to positively impact the community in a variety of ways. Some of the public benefits that can be encouraged as part of a redevelopment include: ▪▪ Providing a new connection to Scarsdale Avenue (across tracks); ▪▪ Demolishing the garage and reconfiguring the commuter parking lot; ▪▪ Contributing funds to rehabilitate and upgrade the existing Freightway Garage; ▪▪ Improving access to Garth Road; ▪▪ Providing a publicly accessible plaza; ▪▪ Including space for community use (i.e. theater, pool, community center); ▪▪ Including “destination” type retail; ▪▪ Providing housing at a mix of price points (affordable, workforce, etc.); ▪▪ Incorporating green standards for development and infrastructure; and ▪▪ Building flexibility into design of new parking facility so that it can be retrofitted to another use if needed.

These benefits all are desired amenities but they will have significant costs to achieve. For example, the cost of a plaza connection on Metro-North tracks could be between $400-500 per square foot. Thus a half-acre plaza could be in the $10 million range. It is recognized that the Village may want to have some flexibility on permitted density to offset these costs. Other options are grants for specific uses, ad- justments to land costs or sharing of parking revenue.

51 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Principle 3: Ensure contextual development (scale, bulk, and height).

3.1. The height of the buildings shall be respectful of the Har- wood Building, the Freightway garage, and the Garth Road apartments.

The existing scale of the Village Center and Garth Road should be respected. Heights should generally not exceed that of the Harwood building in the Village Center. The height at the periphery of the development closest to adjacent properties are more sensitive to height than within the $ interior. The building’s massing and bulk should be broken up or articulated so that a village scale is maintained. If smaller buildings can be achieved, it will open opportunities for pedestrian walkways and small open spaces.

3.2 Architecture should be contextual and should be consistent with Village Center in terms of style, materials and detailing.

The design of any buildings should contribute to the quality of the Village Center’s overall image and character. Special attention should be given to the Popham Road streetscape and façade, which would be the most visible portion of the building. Design of the site should also consider views of the façade generally and from the east (i.e. the railroad, Scarsdale Avenue and the Overhill neighborhood) and from the South from the Town of Eastchester. If the garage is rebuilt, designs should use high quality materials and design treatments that respect views from the east. Lighting and landscaping should be designed to minimize light pollution into the Overhill neighborhood. If the existing garage is rehabilitated, consideration should be given to improving and updating the façade of the building

52 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Principle 4: Encourage mixed-use development supportive of Village Center.

4.1. New development should provide an attractive mix of residential and commercial uses which are complementary to those in the Village Center. $ There is a solid market for multi-family residential, especially given the demand from “empty nesters” and millennials. This should be the primary use encouraged on the site. Additional retail development should be carefully reviewed so that it does not unduly compete with Village Center retail. Ideally, retail at the site should be limited to less than 10 percent of total gross floor area unless it is of a desti- Harwood Building, Scarsdale nation nature as discussed below. However, restaurants, community uses and cultural spaces should be encouraged. The scale of the residential portion of the building could also accommodate various types of units at various price points such as age-restricted or workforce housing. The site’s direct access to the tracks and the Village Center increase the viability of these uses.

4.2 Consider destination retail (i.e. food hall), cultural facilities, and recreation uses.

Any non-residential uses should be unique and should focus on drawing residents as well as visitors from outside Scarsdale. In this way, a signature development could help to enliven and bring traffic to the rest of the Village Center. “Experiential retail” such as food halls, art galleries, health and fitness facilities, and theaters and cultural centers were supported by the public. This sector of brick-and-mortar stores is gaining momentum despite retail attrition due to online shopping. Retail uses that expect to have peak parking demand during nights and on weekends could use commuter parking spaces which would be underutilized during those periods.

Christie Place, Scarsdale

53 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Principle 5: Connect and integrate the Freightway Site with the Village Center.

5.1 Design should improve pedestrian connections between Village Center and Garth Road and between parking and Scarsdale Station.

Any future development should provide high-quality, publicly accessible walkways and additional nodes of public space. The goal is to improve the connection and continuity among Scarsdale Avenue, Popham Road, Garth Road, and East Parkway. These connections would also improve con- $ nectivity to existing green spaces like the Bronx River Res- Storrs Center, Mansfield, CT toration walkway and the path between Garth Road and the Bronx River Parkway.

Active ground floor uses and careful building design should be provided so as to create a diverse, interesting public realm for pedestrians, with large transparent windows and frequent building entrances. Streetscape connections and any interface with the public realm should continue the Village Center streetscape standards. If the Freightway Garage is rebuilt, the pedestrian connection that currently exists across the tracks should be retained and improved. Improved pedestrian connections should be considered between the redevelopment site and Popham Road.

5.2 Encourage the creation of a high quality public space, such as a plaza, as an organizing feature and gathering place for the Village.

The site should include an open plaza or another feature that could serve as a focal point within the Village Cen- ter. One option may include building a platform over the railroad tracks with some open space. This would help to enhance the appearance of and potential of the Scarsdale Avenue/Popham Road corner and create an improved pedestrian connection among the Village Center, Scarsdale Avenue and Garth Road.

54 $ Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Principle 6 Include environmentally sustainable development.

6.1 Encourage attention to environmental (green) standards for development and infrastructure.

Promoting development adjacent to existing transit or “Transit Oriented Development” has the inherent benefit of addressing climate change by encouraging uses less $ dependent on the automobile. To further these efforts, the Village should promote development that incorporates green technologies in its design, construction, operation and maintenance. For example, buildings should use green Green roof with solar panels infrastructure where possible to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and provide landscape opportunities to return rainwater to the water table through natural filtration. Choice of materials should favor those that depreciate less over time and have fewer maintenance issues (such as favoring concrete construction over stick construction. The use of new technologies such as solar generation and green roofs should be encouraged. The design of buildings should take into consideration LEED equivalent standards or other performance standards such as EnergyStar.

Cable supported green wall in Switzerland

55 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Principle 7: Plan for the long term future, within a reasonably practicable time horizon.

7.1 Consider long-term impacts of redevelopment plans.

The present Freightway parking structure has stood for over 40 years. That illustrates the long-term effect a redevelopment plan will have on the Village, its residents and other stakeholders. Therefore any plans for redevelopment $ should look as far into the future as is reasonably practicable.

7.2 Consider potential changes due to new technologies such as autonomous cars and ridesharing.

As one example that might impact decisions on parking capacity, consider potential changes due to new technologies such as autonomous cars and ride sharing. The need for commuter parking is based on the current transportation paradigm that revolves around the personal automobile. However, new technologies such as autonomous cars and ride sharing may shift commuting patterns to a model that has significantly less demand for parking. Therefore, it is important that parking areas be “future proofed” so that they can be converted to another use if needed. Two design strategies are designing garages with flat floors and large floor-to-floor heights so they can be converted to residential or other appropriate uses if parking demand wanes.

56 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

5.0. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS

Before a specific program for the site can be developed and zoning changes can be considered, it is important to consider the development opportunities and constraints at the site. For the purposes of this analysis, the Freightway site was divided into three distinct development areas, the Open Lot, the Freightway Garage and the Beatty Lot. The development constraints and opportunities for each area are illustrated in Figure 13.

The constraints analysis (Figure 13) suggests that the Open Lot is the area that is most feasible from a development perspective. It is currently undeveloped, it is in the most visible area from Popham Road, and is the closest to the Village Center and the train station. The topography lends Open Lot well to parking below the street level at Popham Road. It is estimated that about 2-3 levels of parking could be fit in below the street level at the Popham Road Bridge. Going deeper than that would be difficult given the height of the water table.

A review of prior proposals for the site indicate that there may be constraints with regard to digging below the surface of the existing lot. A proposal for the site from the Penn Central Real Estate Corporation in 1989 indicated that the ground water elevation at the Open Lot is relatively high, approximately 10-12 feet below the surface. A development would presumably want to stay out of the water table. The borings from the 1989 proposal are shown in Figure 14. Freightway Garage

Redeveloping the Freightway Garage (while maintaining existing parking supply) has the potential to provide the greatest benefit because it would allow the Village to design an attractive facility with improved traffic circulation and access. The largest constraint would be ensuring that parking impacts were minimized during redevelopment; 474 spaces at the existing lot would need to be accounted for. This could be accomplished through the phasing of redevelopment, which is discussed in the ensuing chapter.

At the present time, the Beatty Lot appears to be the least desirable location for residential or commercial development. The site is limited from an access standpoint and is the furthest area from the station. Beatty Lot There is also a slight elevation change between that area and the rest of the site which is a barrier to vehicular access. However, if the Freightway Garage were to be redeveloped, it would open up the Beatty Lot to another use other than parking. The Beatty Lot and the Freightway Garage could be developed together for a more unified design. While the Beatty Lot is approximately 30 feet higher than the Open Lot, according to Village officials, the Beatty Lot is built over solid rock compared to soil. If so, this would make excavation more expensive in that area.

57 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Beatty Lot Open Lot Pros: Pros: • Currently undeveloped (surface parking lot with 51 spaces). • Currenttly undeveloped (surface parking lot with 62 Cons: spaces). • Limited vehicular and pedestrian access to Garth Road (one-way alley). • Closest area to train station • Topographic change between Beatty Lot and Freightway garage is a and Village Center. consideration, as it limits vehicular access between areas. • Existing topography lends TOWN OF GR EENBURGH well to providing 2-3 levels of Gart R parking below the street level h Road ESTE H at Popham Road. C STv EA Building along Popham Road F • Freightway Garage would also reinforce the WN O TO y streetscape and connectivity d a a Pros: w k Ro t between Garth Road and the Grayroc h g • Allows Village to rebuild parking i Village Center. e

r facility which is in disrepair and in F • Area has potential to need of improvements. platform over the tracks at • Redeveloping garage has potential to C Popham Road. provide significant parking/access and • Most attractive area for circulation improvements. B housing and retail. • Would allow for a larger and more A Cons: unified site. • 62-100 commuter spaces Could improve access to Beatty Lot e • need to be replaced in lac portion of site. Scarsdale P Scar short-term. ht sdale Ave rig nue R.R. Station W • Area has access to Garth Road via Freightway. Cons: If redeveloped, would need to demol- • E ast Parkway ish existing garage and replace d

existing 474 parking spaces during the oa

R development process.

m • Phasing of any development needs to a ph be carefully planned so that parking is o P maintained during construction.

Figure 13: Development Opportunity and Constraints

58 0’ 50’25’ 100’ Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

existing 474 parking spaces during the oa

R development process.

m • Phasing of any development needs to a ph be carefully planned so that parking is o P maintained during construction.

0’ 50’25’ 100’ 59 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

A survey of the subsurface conditions such as soil composition and water table measurements were not completed as part of this study. Once a developer is selected by the Village, they can begin the investigatory process which will involve meetings with Village agencies (i.e. Police, Fire and Water), Metro-North, and other agencies to discuss topics relevant to building adjacent to and potentially over the railroad tracks. The Village would also need to grant the developer access to the site for surveys and soil samples.

KEY BORING INFORMATION - FREIGHTWAY SITE

GARTH ROAD TEST HOLE #3 TEST HOLE #4 137.5 - GROUND ELEVATION: 137.5 - GROUND ELEVATION: 129.8 - GROUND WATER ELEVATION 125.0 - GROUND WATER ELEVATION

-18’-0” Tan grey mf sand, little silt, little mf gravel (decomposed rock) -12’-0” Tan grey mf sand, trace silt, trace fine gravel (micaseous) -23’-0” Grey white gneiss, predominantly quartz -25’-0” Grey white gneiss, quartzite -28’-0” Bottom of boring - 30’-0” Bottom of boring

FREIGHTWAY PARKING GARAGE

OPHAM

ROAD

TEST HOLE #5 TEST HOLE #6 138.0 - GROUND ELEVATION: 138.5 - GROUND ELEVATION: 128.0 - GROUND WATER ELEVATION 128.8 - GROUND WATER ELEVATION

-9’-0” Tan grey cf gravel, some sand, trace decomposed rock SCARSDALE AVENUE -11’-5” Brown white cf sand, little cf gravel -16’-0” Grey white gneiss, quartzite -17’-0” Tan grey cf sand, trace silt, little coarse gravel -21’-0” Bottom of boring -19’-0” Grey white gneiss, quartzite -24’-0” Bottom of boring

Figure 14: Key boring information - Freightway site Source Penn Central Real Estate Corporation, RFP Response (1989)

SOURCE: Penn Central Real Estate Corporation, RFP Response (1989)

60 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

5.1: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

While there are many different reasonable scenarios for redevelopment of the site, four scenarios were developed to show a realistic layout from a fi scal and physical constraint perspective. These scenarios are also intended to refl ect the vision discussed earlier. The layouts shown are not intended to limit potential developers in what they might propose for the site. However, any proposals that are made should also address and refl ect the principles and vision presented in this report.

Unless another viable temporary plan is devised, it is assumed that the existing supply of commuter and short-term parking would be maintained during the course of the development. In order to do this, development would need to be carefully sequenced to ensure the facility is still operable as a commuter lot during construction. The description of the four options below describe ways that this could be achieved. All of the options assume that the parking capacity can be maintained on-site. Other ancillary parking management techniques can help to maintain parking supply in the short-term, such as ridesharing services, satellite parking, and shuttle services.

The scenarios vary primarily in their degree of development intensity. For example, Scenarios 1 and 2 both focus new development on the Open Lot and include repairs and upgrades to the existing Freightway garage. Scenarios 3 and 4 both show a redevelopment of the entire site including the existing garage. While these two options would be more expensive, reconfi guring the site opens up a variety of opportunities to make the site a more cohesive part of the Village Center. During the public outreach process, there was a diversity of opinions with regard to which scenario was best. While there wasn’t a clear consensus, most participants seemed to favor scenarios 3 and 4 for their promise to bring more benefi ts to the Village as a whole.

Source Penn Central Real Estate Corporation, RFP Response (1989)

61 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Scenario One: Develop Open Lot

The first development scenario operates with the assumption that it is feasible for the Village to rehabilitate and extend the life of the existing Freightway garage rather than completely redevelop it. A preliminary condition analysis prepared for the Village estimated that repairs and maintenance would cost $1.8 million, new LED lighting would cost $250,000, and a new facade would cost $250,000, for a total of $2.3 million. On-going maintenance would be required. Other improvements could include electronic signage, covered parking on the roof perhaps with a solar installation, and improved access areas.

The development in Alternative One is focused on the Open Lot area. The building would have 2-3 floors of parking beneath a mixed-use building fronting on Popham Road. This option leaves open possibilities for redeveloping the Freightway Garage and Beatty Lot in the future. Parking capacity could be retained during construction of the building by increasing the capacity and efficiency of the Beatty Lot and the Freightway Garage. The Beatty Lot could be improved with temporary car stackers or valet parking the site. The capacity at the Freightway garage can be increased by valet parking the entire facility during the week.

Since this scenario occupies the smallest footprint, it has the smallest amount of development. It is estimated that approximately 58 to 93 units (depending on condo or rental) could be built on the site.

Scenario Two: Develop Open Lot with Platform over Tracks

The second development scenario also assumes that it is fiscally and structurally feasible to rehabilitate the Freightway garage. This scenario would redevelop the Open Lot in a similar manner to Scenario One, however it would also platform over the Metro-North railroad tracks along the Popham Road Bridge. This platform area could be added as public space. It may also be feasible to connect the platform to a vehicular ramp on the other side of the tracks so that cars can reach the site via Scarsdale Avenue. While expensive to build, this additional access point would help to relieve congestion on Garth Road during the peak periods.

As with Scenario One, Scenario Two leaves the possibility of redeveloping the Freightway garage and Beatty site sometime in the future. While platforming over the tracks makes Scenario Two inherently more complicated and expensive than Scenario One, it would provide public benefit opportunities for the Village and developer. To make this project feasible, higher densities of development would be required compared to Scenario One. It is estimated that approximately 79 to 127 units (depending on condo or rental) could be built on the site.

Parking capacity could be retained during construction of Scenario Two through the same methods as Scenario One; by increasing the capacity at the Beatty Lot and the Freightway Garage through valet parking and temporary stackers. 62 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Redevelopment Scenario One: Develop Open Lot

Units

58-93

Redevelopment Scenario Two: Develop Open Lot with platform over tracks

Units

79-127

Figure 15: Development Scenarios 1 & 2

63 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Scenario Three: Develop Open Lot and Freightway Garage Area

The third development scenario proposes to redevelop both the Open Lot and the existing garage. The biggest challenge of this Scenario and Scenario Four is maintaining the existing parking supply when the existing garage is removed. This development would have to be phased in order to maintain the existing parking capacity. The first phase of the development includes development of 2-3 parking platforms at the Open Lot first.

The second phase would be to demolish the existing garage and rebuild a 2-3 level parking garage that is connected to the Open Lot side of the development. It is assumed that the developer will have a sequencing strategy to maintain the parking. One possibility would be to build an express ramp in the Open Lot that could be shared with the building of the second part of the garage in phase 2. Once the parking areas are built, a residential building could be built on top of the parking platform. If certain building criteria are met, it is feasible to use a portion of the parking garage while construction is occurring on top of the facility. In this way, it would be possible to build out the site while retaining parking capacity. Short term phasing of the development would also require maximizing the parking capacity at the Beatty Lot with alternatives discussed in Scenarios 1 and 2.

While Scenario Three would have a large amount of space, it would require a substantial investment from a developer to demolish and replace the number of spaces in the existing garage. Therefore, an additional density bonus would be needed to make this option feasible. It is estimated that approximately 91 to 145 units (depending on condo or rental) could be built on the site.

Scenario Four: Develop Open Lot and Freightway Garage Area, Platform over Tracks

The fourth option is the most ambitious of the scenarios. It involves redeveloping the Open lot and Freightway garage in a similar manner as Scenario Three. It also includes and expands upon the platform over the Metro-North tracks concept shown in Scenario Two with both a park at the corner at Scarsdale Avenue and Popham Road and a vehicular ramp to access the site over the tracks. This option would feature the most developable space, which would also result in the most units. The size of the platform over the railroad tracks would also lead to improved pedestrian and vehicular connection from the development to the Village Center.

This development scenario would be phased similarly to Scenario Three, where the Freightway garage would not be redeveloped until the parking structure on the Open Lot was completed. Stackers and valet parking would also be used in the Beatty Lot to provide capacity during construction.

64 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Redevelopment Scenario Three: Develop site in 2 phases

Units

91-145

Redevelopment Scenario 4: Develop site in 2 phases with platform over tracks

Units

141-225

Figure 16: Development Scenarios 3 & 4

65 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

While platforming over the tracks makes Scenario Four inherently more complicated and expensive than Scenario Three, it would provide public benefit opportunities for the Village and developer. To make this project feasible, higher densities of development would be required compared to Scenario Three. It is estimated that approximately 141 to 225 units (depending on condo or rental) could be built on the site.

66 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

6.0. IMPACTS AND IMPLEMENTATION

6.1: CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND FISCAL IMPACTS

This section provides an overview of the financial implications of redeveloping the Freightway site under the four redevelopment scenarios. The scenarios vary with regard to partial or full redevelopment of the 2.5 acre site, construction of a platform over the Metro-North tracks, as well as replacing the existing Freightway garage facility. For this purpose, current values and dimensions of condo and rental units in the Scarsdale market were assumed for competitive purposes and the proposed costs of new residential construction as well as nonresidential demolition and repair were obtained from developers, contractors and the Village of Scarsdale. Metro-North practice regarding use or sale of transit oriented development property was also taken into consideration. As a measure of project feasibility, the cap rate of rental development was calculated based upon projected capital requirements and expected market revenues, and compared to acceptable going-in rates of capitalization for multifamily development in the Northeast.

Construction Costs for Redevelopment Scenarios

Depending upon the option, the cost of constructing a mixed use residential building of 103,675 (Scenario One) to 249,350 GSF (Scenario Four) with requisite parking is estimated to range from $56 million to $173 million in current dollars. Cost estimates for each redevelopment scenario are provided in Table 8. Table 9 shows the cost estimates on a per unit basis. Underlying assumptions for the estimates are provided in Table 10. The costs shown are those assumed to be borne by a private developer and not the Village of Scarsdale.

As seen in Table 9, the number of units and the development costs of any proposed development would depend on the type of tenure (rental or condo) and the mix of units. For example, a rental building would typically have smaller units on average than a condominium building. For example, the mix of units in a rental building would have a higher ratio of one and two bedroom units than a condo building. Condo units are expected to have a higher development cost than rentals on a per square foot basis, as they typically have nicer finishes and amenities.

The assumptions include estimated costs of retaining the existing Freightway Garage (in Scenarios One and Two) and demolition of the Freightway structure (in Scenarios Three and Four). In order to extend the new structure over the Metro-North tracks under either Scenario Two or Fourur, a platform must be built to support upper stories and

67 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Table 8: Estimated Development Costs by Scenario Repair Costs Platform, Ramp Total Scenario Total Building Existing Parking or Demolition & Supervision Development by Total GSF Costs (Millions) Costs (Millions) Costs (Millions) Costs (Millions) Costs (Millions) 1 @ 103,675 $47-52 $2.3 $0 $2.5 $52-57 2 @ 141,330 $63-71 $2.3 $12 $5.6 $96-105 3 @ 165,880 $75-84 $2.6 $0 $24 $102-110 4 @ 249,350 $112-125 $2.6 $16 $29 $160-173 Source: Urbanomics

Table 9: Estimated Per Unit Development Costs by Scenario

Number of Units Development Costs per Unit (Thousands) Scenario Condominium Rental Condominium Rental (Low Estimate) (High Estimate) (High Estimate) (Low Estimate) 1 58 93 $979 $554 2 79 127 $1,326 $759 3 91 145 $1,213 $702 4 141 225 $1,224 $711 Source: Urbanomics

Table 10: Development Costs Assumptions Item Scenarios Cost Residential Structures 1,2,3,4 $300/sq. ft. Underground Parking 1,2,3,4 $40,000/space Existing Garage Upgrade 1,2 $2.3 million Existing Garage Demolition 3,4 $2.6 million Decking over Metro-North 2,4 $400/sq. ft. (8 million for 20,000 sq. ft) Vehicular Ramp (to Scarsdale Ave) 4 $500/linear ft. (1.25 million) Metro-North Supervision Costs 2,4 $3 million Source: Urbanomics

68 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale a ramp constructed to facilitate auto access from displaced parking spaces along Scarsdale Avenue to the lower level interior parking. The Scenario Two platform is roughly 20,000 gross square feet (GSF) while the option 4 platform would be 30,000 GSF, constructed at a cost of $400 price per square foot (PSF). The ramp will cost an estimated $1.25 million. Both Scenarios Two and Four include a nonrefundable deposit of $3 million to Metro-North for supervision of the platform and ramp construction over existing tracks.

Public School Impacts

Whenever multi-family housing is proposed, there is concern about how many school-age children will be generated and about the resulting fiscal impact on the local school district. This concern is understandable given the misconception that multifamily rental housing generates a high number of school-age children. However, it is important to understand changes in demographics, the resulting changes in housing preferences, and the proposed development target market in order to accurately project the number of school age children likely to be generated by the proposed development.

This study used public school enrollment data from four recent studies in nearby communities; one of the studies included enrollment from eight multifamily TOD developments in Stamford, Mamaroneck, and White Plains which were obtained from their respective school districts and building operators. While school enrollment data is available for existing multi-family housing in Scarsdale, data from those buildings are not considered to be comparable to the anticipated development at the Freightway Site.1 Scarsdale’s existing multi-family buildings are generally older with a mixture of larger units (2 and 3 bedrooms). Also, development at the Freightway site will respond to the current market, which provides lifestyle amenities intended to attract empty nesters and millennials. An example of these lifestyle amenities can be can be seen at the Quarry, a rental development in Tuckahoe, and Villa BXV, a condominium in Bronxville. The Freightway Steering Committee visited each of these developments. Therefore, the range of school age students shown in Table 12 is attributed to the high and low estimates based on studies of comparable recent developments in nearby communities.2 For conservative purposes, only the highest range of school child multiplier from these studies was adopted for school expenditures.

1 Data provided by the Scarsdale tax assessor shows that there is an average of 0.41 school children per unit in 4 multi-family buildings in Scarsdale. 2 School children generation numbers for multi-family housing were based on four recent studies in the area. The first was prepared for a transit oriented development in Fairfield, Ct. The comparables used for this study resulted in an overall public school generation of 0.031 students per unit. A separate study by Robert Galvin, the Village of Mamaroneck planner, of transit oriented developments in New Jersey, led to the same generation number of 0.031 public school students per unit. BFJ Planning obtained a student generation number from Avalon multi- family residential units in Long Island, which resulted in 0.087 public school children per unit. Finally, a current review of comparables by Cleary Consulting in the Village of Pelham, N.Y. for multi-family development near the train station has shown a public school generation ratio of 0.07 per multi-family unit. 69 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

As seen in Table 12, Scenario Four, which has the largest amount of Table 11: Scarsdale Union Free School residential development, is only expected to result in a maximum of District Enrollment 20 school children. This chart was done by Urbanomics, a real estate Scarsdale K-12 affiliate of BFJ Planning. Slightly different assumptions were used for School Year Enrollment condominium and rental development. In all cases, there is a significant financial benefit to the school district because relatively few school 2016-2017 4,775 children would be added to local schools. 2015-2016 4,775 2014-2015 4,821 The Scarsdale Village Center is located within the Scarsdale Union Free 2013-2014 4,787 School District. Students residing on the project site would currently 2012-2013 4,739 attend the Fox Meadow Elementary School or the Middle or High School. 2011-2012 4,721 Enrollment in the district has seen a slight decline (1%) since its peak in 2014/2015. Enrollment is expected to remain level for 2017/2018. 2010-2011 4,766 These enrollment numbers suggest that there is capacity in the district 2009-2010 4,718 to absorb some new students. 2008-2009 4,716 2007-2008 4,714 Almost all the schools in Scarsdale have had more students at one 2007-2006 4,680 point than the maximum 20 net students projected. Not all students 2005-2006 4,679 would be the same age, so they would be dispersed throughout 12 2004-2005 4,593 grade levels. 2003-2004 4,568 To analyze school expenditures, per student expenditure ratios were Source: New York State Education Department. https:// data.nysed.gov/archive.php?instid=800000034921 compared to the predicted generation of school children in each redevelopment scenario (based on the tenure and estimated bedroom mix). Educational expenditures for enrolled K-12 students, which are exclusive of State funding and computed on a per pupil basis, represent an average annual outlay of $29,070 per student.

As seen in Table 12, all of the redevelopment scenarios show that tax revenues generated from the development will more than cover the costs to the School District. The analysis does not consider the additional tax revenue that will be generated as part of the non-residential portion of the development.

Table 12: Household Population & Public School Students by Redevelopment Scenario

Option by Tenure Range of Highest Residential Household School Cost Residential (Condo or School Age School Tax School Units Population Benefit GSF Rental) Students Expenditure Condo 58 151 2 to 5 $749,337 $146,686 $602,651 1 @ 93,308 Rental 93 134 3 to 8 $679,281 $235,204 $444,077 Condo 79 205 2 to 7 $1,207,627 $199,491 $1,008,135 2 @ 127,197 Rental 127 181 4 to 11 $1,113,183 $322,410 $790,773 Condo 91 234 3 to 8 $1,477,354 $230,146 $1,247,208 3 @ 145,144 Rental 145 208 4 to 13 $1,363,315 $366,716 $996,598 Condo 141 362 4 to 12 $2,309,768 $355,841 $1,953,927 4 @ 224,415 Rental 225 320 7 to 20 $2,141,046 $568,737 $1,572,309 Source: Urbanomics

70 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

6.2: INFRASTRUCTURE

Municipal Services and Infrastructure

This section addresses critical services and infrastructure that would be needed for redevelopment. A more detailed review of these services would need to be provided as part of any proposed plan for the site.

Municipal Services (Police and Fire)

The development would increase demands on municipal services. Andy Matturro, the Police Chief and Jim Seymour, the Fire Chief, were contacted to provide input on the concept of redevelopment at the site. While no specific plans for the site were discussed, several general concerns were brought up. Police concerns in the area include traffic congestion, pedestrian safety and limited availability of parking. Popham Road at Garth Road and at Scarsdale Avenue/East Parkway were both cited as problematic intersections. Although there are perceptions that crime is an issue, there have been very few incidents on the site in recent years. Nevertheless, conditions could be improved to make the area feel more comfortable for users (i.e. with better lighting and facility improvements). The Police Department would also need to be consulted for coordination during construction (i.e. traffic control, need for police manpower, etc.). Concerns of the Fire Department were focused on access to the site in the event of a fire or other emergency. Access to the western side is also complicated by the presence of the Metro-North tracks.

Water and Sewer

Stormwater runoff from development will represent a negligible increase over existing conditions since the majority of the site is already covered by building or pavement. As discussed in Section 4, one of the priorities of the site will be to include green infrastructure where possible to reduce runoff from impervious surfaces and provide landscape opportunities to return rainwater to the water table through natural filtration.

It is anticipated that the demand for water and sewer capacity will increase as a result of redeveloping the site. Any infrastructure improvements needed for the site will need to be addressed if plans for the site are proposed. According to the Village Engineer, there is existing infrastructure under the site, including a water main, an 18” sewer from Scarsdale Avenue towards Garth Road, and a 15” reinforced pipe for storm drainage. Any infrastructure would need to be replaced and means and methods would need to be provided for future excavation.

71 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

6.3: IMPLEMENTATION AND NEXT STEPS

Issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) or Request for Proposals (RFP)

This study provides the Village with the important elements it requires to move on to the next stage of the process, which is the issuance of a request for qualifications (RFQ) or a request for proposals (RFP) from the development community. The RFQ would be used by the Village if they wished to prescreen potential bidders. This RFQ would help narrow down the choices to the developers with the best qualifications. In the RFP process, proposals would include the developers’ qualifications along with their detailed plan/approach to development at the Freightway site.

In both the RFQ and RFP scenarios, proposals should strive to address the development principles discussed in Section 4. In fact, it is recommended that those principles be included in the RFP/RFQ, serving as the framework upon which developers would make their proposals to the Village.

Once a developer is selected by the Village, they can begin the investigatory process which will involve meetings with Village agencies (i.e. Police, Fire and Water), and Metro-North to discuss topics relevant to building adjacent to and potentially over the railroad tracks. The Village would also need to grant the developer access to the site for surveys and soil samples.

The Village may need to make zoning changes that allow a proposed redevelopment plan to be built. The Village Board is the body with jurisdiction over the adoption of zoning changes, and consideration of the proposed zoning will be subject to a separate approval process, including environmental review.

Negotiation of Development Density

It is anticipated that a developer may offer public benefits such as a park or cultural facility in return for additional density. In determining the specific amount of density to be granted, consideration should be given to the cost of providing the benefit. In that way the Village can incentivize the public benefit by allowing the appropriate amount of development that would offset the cost of providing these features.

The Village is in a strong position as it owns the entirety of the Freightway site and controls its zoning. The Village can use density as an incentive for benefits but also land sale/lease reductions or a share or parking revenue. The Visioning process does not get into these details, but rather attempts to illustrate the community’s concerns and desires around the development site.

72 Village of Scarsdale Village of Scarsdale

Public Review

Transparency and public engagement were key principles for the Freightway Site Redevelopment Study. The Village should continue to involve the public, at appropriate moments, in future planning for the site. While there is no current plan for the site, if any redevelopment were to occur, it is anticipated a zoning change and site plan approval would be required. Both of these processes will provide an opportunity for public review and comment. The Freightway site is in the designated special design district. This means that any application would undergo site plan and design review by the Planning Board, and, as an additional level of review, the Board of Architectural Review (BAR).

73 Freightway Site Redevelopment Study

Freightway Site Redevelopment Study Appendix A: Public Outreach Summary

 Public Meeting #1  Public Meeting #2  Public Meeting #3  Online Survey  Commuter and Merchant Survey

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries

Overview of Public Outreach The primary objective for the study is to have a broad and meaningful public engagement process. Community outreach is a critical component of the Plan to ensure the vision for future development meets local needs and that it is supported to the maximum extent possible by residents, property owners, merchants, and the Village. All public outreach events were coordinated with the help of the Freightway Steering Committee (FSC), Village staff, and key stakeholders.

The planning process included numerous opportunities for public input including:

 Three public workshops;  Online public survey;  Commuter intercept survey;  Merchant intercept survey;  Three focus group meetings: o Adjacent business owners, o Adjacent residents, and o Property owners and developers;  Two walking tours; and  Monthly meetings with the FSC which were open to the public.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 1

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

Public Workshop #1 - Meeting Record Meeting Date: June 12, 2017 This report summarizes the first public workshop which was held on June 12th in Village Hall. There were approximately 60 people in attendance. The meeting was recorded by Scarsdale Public TV and the recording is available online at www.scarsdale.com/fw. All interested residents, property owners and other stakeholders were encouraged to attend and share their thoughts on the vision, goals and objectives for the site. Live feed to Scarsdale Cable TV

The workshop began with an introduction from Jon Mark, Chair of the Freightway Steering Committee who introduced the Steering Committee and explained the purpose of the planning effort. Representatives from BFJ Planning then provided an overview of the site and discussed preliminary ideas and concerns as identified in preliminary reports and by the Steering Committee.

Frank Fish, Principal at BFJ Planning, continued with an explanation of the scope and timeline of the study. He then discussed the long history of planning efforts involving the Freightway site. Jonathan Martin, Senior Associate at BFJ Planning, then provided an overview of existing conditions in the surrounding area, specifically focusing on the Freightway site, Garth Road and the Village Center. The overview looked at land use, streetscape and architectural character, constraints, and user patterns in and around the site/train station. It was explained that the need for the study at this point was largely due to the investment required and anticipated to maintain and upgrade the existing garage. This was not a factor considered during prior planning efforts.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 2

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

After the presentation, there was a 20-minute participatory exercise to “break the ice” and get participants to begin thinking about their vision and priorities for the site. Participants were asked to respond to an online poll from their phones and responses were shown in real time.

The informal exercise was a straw poll, meaning it was unofficial and non-scientific, intended to obtain a general opinion of the various questions asked from those at the meeting. Viewers watching live on Scarsdale public TV or online were also able to participate in the poll. All responses were anonymous and participants who chose to write their answers on a hard-copy form instead of submitting them online were free to do so. Three hard-copy written comments were received and were incorporated into the summary below.

WHERE DO YOU LIVE?

Elsewhere, 7 respondents, To get the conversation started, participants were asked 21% Scarsdale (outside where they live. A third of the participants live within ½ mile of Village center), 15 respondents, the station area, just less than half live somewhere else in Village Center (1/2 46% Scarsdale Village and the rest live elsewhere. mile from station), 11 respondents, 33%

The next two questions asked participants to provide a word or phrase that best reflects their feeling about how the Freightway site (1) currently is and (2) how it could be. The words were visually represented in real time as a “Word Cloud” which graphically highlights the words that were most frequently used to describe the site. Results for the two word cloud questions are shown below.

Note: Some responses written down during the meeting (rather than submitted electronically) were added after the Informal straw poll taken with handheld phones meeting. Responses were edited after the meeting for spelling and consistency.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 3

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

(76 responses) (83 responses)

Participants were asked their opinion on which major issues were most important. Respondents were asked to choose two of six general preliminary issues identified by the consultants in conjunction with the Freightway Steering Committee. As seen in the graph below, the quick poll showed that maintaining the existing number of parking spaces, mixed-use development (i.e. ground floor retail or community services with residential above) and attractive buildings were most frequently cited priorities for the site. Participants were then given the opportunity to answer the open-ended question on what other priorities they have for the site. The responses are grouped into general themes.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 4

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

General Comments  Too much development  Smart growth  Concerned about overdevelopment  A development in our lifetimes!  Underdeveloped  Work with surrounding private owners  Build it today  Let's get it done this time  Speed this up please  Well managed project  Overdevelopment  Scarsdale continued revitalization  Planning and site development process should remain open to public comments.

. Streetscape/Community Design  Charming space that works with the rest of town  Natural, park space  Pleasing aesthetic  Attach to Village Center  Better connect to Village Center  Better connect Garth road residents  Water fountains public space  Green space with trees  Connect to Bronx River Parkway Reservation  Connectivity  Green priorities  Architecturally appealing  Visually inviting  Flexible long-term design  Improve connection to Village Center  Great design  Should connect with Village Center  Scarsdale needs connectivity  Structure that enhances the Village and offers residents more opportunities.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 5

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

Cultural and Community Amenities  Movie theater  Theater  Community space with entertainment  Community social space  Recreation, entertainment and food.  Destination  Indoor pool for apartments and community  Movie-theater  Theater cultural-amenities  Culture  Theater that could be used for a variety of arts  Arts!  Mixed use with green and cultural aspects; lack of  Public bathrooms and drinking water fountain daily cultural offerings in Scarsdale

Parking and Transportation  Parking for existing businesses  Include dead end street in plan  Fix the parking crisis  Access over tracks to Scarsdale Ave.  Lower cost of Permit parking  Less traffic  Increase parking spots and get monitory help from  Car Rental Company for NYC “get away” Greenburgh/Edgemont and Metro North crowd  Shuttle from one end of town to another (including li-  Maintain (or increase) number of parking brary, schools, etc) spaces

Retail/Village Center  There are empty stores  Luxury shopping  Mixed community  Housing  No negative impact on existing retailers in village  Housing for all ages  No impact on retailers in village  More residential options in Scarsdale  Affordability for younger and more diverse residents  Enhance, not detract from existing Village Center  Save the village from deteriorating retail traffic further  How to attract business when the village is suffering with empty stores  Look at “lifetime fitness” model (Food retail, spa, etc.)  Be a leader in improving what small downtowns can be

Schools and Taxes  Dont overload schools  Better tax base for town  Lower taxes

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 6

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

Following the interactive exercise, the public was invited to participate in a town hall meeting where the floor was opened to the public to voice their concerns, recommendations, and feedback about the approach to the study. Specific comments made during this segment are provided below.

 Elaborate on sliding scale of development and impact on community: 2010 Study offered various options for site. Scale of development refers to degrees of density and development and are options to develop an idea  Will parking be increased or decreased? Not decided yet, but realize parking is a main issue.  Is there below grade parking on site now? No, there is a surface lot and the garage.  Can below grade parking be a consideration? Yes  700 parking spots are mostly for commuters but some merchants as well. There are very few spots for merchants and employees of nearby shops along Garth Road  What happened after the 2010 study? Is there a timeframe for this plan? What will the process of the study look like? This committee is engaged in the process for the next 8 months, at which time the committee will produce a report with feedback from the Village. Consultants provided a comparable example of process in White Plains.  It is important to look at businesses that have left Scarsdale, why are storefronts empty? Consultant team will look into retail market data. This trend is happening in other towns, not just Scarsdale.  Is there a way to make crossing at Popham Road/Garth Road more safe?  Concern about the type of development on Scarsdale Avenue and what residents in Overhill neighborhood will look at.  Does Ginsburg Development still own parcel on Garth Road? Yes, they own a portion of the adjacent property on Garth Road and Popham Road.  Have tree species been considered in areas abutting the tracks?  Study should review the 1999 EIS, which addressed similar issues and opportunities that are being addressed now. The Village in the process of locating this document.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 7

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

 Whatever proposed should enhance the Village’s existing conditions.  Keep the process interactive and informative  Bronx River Parkway pathway is on other side of Garth Road. The pathway will be extended, which opens up the potential for more people. It would be nice for other amenities to be incorporated onto recreational paths along Bronx River Parkway for those who ride bikes.  Pedestrian walkway has a nice view: could there be an opportunity for a family restaurant? Indoor pool? Community Theater? Or some multi-purpose space?  Some shoppers use the valet parking in the Freightway garage due to lack of street parking. What will happen to merchants/business while the site is under construction?  The Freightway site is an exciting opportunity for Scarsdale. Do case studies have retail? The other projects vary, Bronxville’s Villa BXV and Avalon are primarily residential, but other case studies have some retail. Avalon provides below grade parking including significant increase in parking for the Village.  There are 700 parking spaces on Freightway site. Does ProPark own the parking spaces or does the Village, what is the revenue? ProPark manages the spaces. They park about 200-250 cars on weekdays.  Surface lot is immediately adjacent to Popham Bridge-could be opportunity. The parking lot is well below the grade of the bridge, so parking could be tucked underneath. Christie Place provided two levels below grade of parking. Christie Place is a success, a lot of people like it.  Do not to cannibalize the Village Center by replicating the same shops across the street. Consider a community space (i.e. ice rink, theater, stand-up comedy). Consider cheaper parking for merchants.  Parking is a high concern, so seeing density increase or ideas of multi-use, and retail is a necessity, like ice cream shops. There’s also concern about density of parking. The parking lot lets out to one street. It doesn’t do much good for those who currently park in the garage if they cannot get out onto Scarsdale Avenue.  Disagreement that millennials are a market for condos at station area. Building should gear towards people who are already here.  Once demolition starts in the garage, where will commuters and shoppers park? Residential streets? Any future developer will need to respond/address this issue in their site plan. Development will need to be phased.  Would the Village maintain ownership or lease it to a developer? Any of the above suggestions work. Most likely scenario would be purchase of land by developer.  Suggestion that development on Freightway shouldn’t be bigger (taller) than Christie Place. New development could be flexible office space, to help to bring people downtown during the day.  Light pollution from the garage at night is an issue.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 8

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

The public workshop drew a crowd of approximately 60 in Village Hall that was engaged in the current issues facing the Scarsdale community, and provided feedback on previous planning efforts, and the future they envision for the Freightway Site. The major feedback drawn from the public workshop include but are not limited to the topics below:

. Freightway Site Parking: Many residents, at least one of whom had a business on Garth Road, expressed concern about issues related to parking and circulation on the existing site. Adja- cent business owners felt that the lack of available parking hurts business as there are few short term parking options for employees or shoppers. Despite the fact that there are approximately 700 spaces, they are primarily dedicated to commuters and availability for patrons and employees of nearby businesses is limited during the day. Concern was also expressed that if any development were to occur, what would happen to existing parking during the construction period. It was explained that any development would be phased in order to maintain a supply of parking for commuters and shoppers. It is also possible that the Village could leverage any development with an increased supply of parking. This was the case in Bronxville, where a mixed-use development (Villa BXV) provided 200 or more public spaces for the Village, which more than doubled the public parking supply in the downtown area. Alternatives for phasing will be evaluated in this study and will be a key element in any development plan.

. Potential for development: There seemed to be general support for redeveloping the site with residential uses, community facilities and some retail (where appropriate), provided that parking was maintained. Participants generally seemed optimistic about the potential for the site to provide an attractive and appropriately scaled building with improved parking and amenities to the Village. There was agreement that whatever is proposed, it should enhance the existing streetscape including improved connections to the Village Center and Garth Road. There was also some concern about the potential for overdevelopment at the site.

. Impact on Downtown: A large topic of discussion was the impact that a new mixed-use development might have on the existing retail in Scarsdale’s downtown. Some stores in the Vil- lage Center are struggling due to a number of factors, such as regional trends in the retail market and Scarsdale specific issues. Residents expressed that retail uses should not be dupli- cative of what is offered in the Village Center. It was explained that the study would take a look at retail and would conduct interviews with local merchants to understand the current situation.

. Potential for Cultural/Community Uses: Some residents commented that development at the site should include cultural and community uses. Some proposed uses include an indoor pool (which doesn’t exist elsewhere in the Village), a theater or cultural center (akin to Jacob Burns Film Center in Pleasantville), or a gym/health center (note: a similar use successfully exists pres- ently in the mixed-use building on the north east corner of Popham and Garth Roads [CVS Building]). Some residents were concerned about adding more retail considering there is already a number of vacant storefronts in the Village Center. It was stressed that any new development provide amenities that would benefit people already living in the community. For example, an indoor pool could be utilized by the high school swim team, which currently drives to Valhalla to practice. Other ideas for potential uses included restaurants, flexible office space or other multi-purpose space.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 9

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #1

. Traffic and Circulation: While parking is a large concern, there is also a concern about traffic during the peak hours. If residential uses are added to the site, that will add to traffic onto Popham Road and Scarsdale Avenue. It was explained that evaluating this issue is part of the scope of the study.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 10

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #2

Public Workshop #2 - Meeting Record Meeting Date: September 28, 2017 This report summarizes the second public workshop which was held on September 28th at the Scarsdale Congregational Church. There were approximately 45 people in attendance. The meeting was recorded by Scarsdale Public TV and the recording is available online at www.scarsdale.com/fw.

The workshop began with a welcome from Jon Mark, Chair of the Freightway Steering Committee (FSC), who explained the purpose of the planning effort and introduced the Steering Committee. Jonathan Martin and Noah Levine of BFJ Planning, consultants to the FSC, provided an overview of the study site and discussed issues and opportunities as identified in the site analysis and through public outreach. The full presentation can be found in the Appendix of this report.

The consultants, explained the process, goals and objectives of the study. The need for the study at this point is largely due to the investment required and anticipated to maintain and upgrade the existing garage. This was not a factor considered during prior planning efforts such as the Update of the Village Center Component of the Comprehensive Plan prepared in 2010.

After presenting the existing conditions and an analysis of constraints, the consultants presented four preliminary redevelopment scenarios for the site. The conceptual scenarios were intended to show realistic approaches for how the site could be developed, taking into consideration phasing of construction and parking.

After the presentation, public participants broke into several roundtable groups tasked with discussing the four options for the site and other ideas that might be considered in the future. Each discussion group appointed one of their members to present a summary of their conversation to all participants.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 11

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #2

The focus of the discussion was the four development scenarios presented by the consultants. The intent was to have people look at the big picture rather than details and nuances about site development (of which there are many). Participants were asked to assume the following about each of the scenarios:

 Existing parking will be maintained at project completion.  Development will be phased to minimize parking disruptions during construction period.  Development will have positive fiscal impacts.  Development would be financially feasible for a developer  Architecture and urban design will be contextual with Village dCenter an surrounding area.

The topics discussed at each table were:

1. Which option seems to be the most agreeable? Why? 2. What community amenities at the site are most important to you? (i.e. public gathering space, additional parking – both long and short-term, community use such as a theater, vehicular access to Scarsdale Road, restaurants, etc.) 3. What other issues and opportunities should be considered in these or any other scenarios?

Group 1 Group 2

Group 3 Group 4

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 12

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #2

Group 1:  Development option 4 was preferred as it was the most ambitious, with some conditions. Group 2:  Development options 3 & 4 were preferred. One person preferred to take a conservative approach and do what appears to be more feasible (option 1). Group 3:  There was a mix of opinions, but development option 4 had the most support. Some participants felt that the existing garage doesn’t fit the style/feel of the community. It was agreed that each scenario had different trade-offs. While option 4 is the most ambitious, eliminating an eyesore and unifying the streetscape, it would be the most disruptive to the community during construction. Group 4:  Preference for options 2 & 4. These two options were the best at “connectivity and convenience” as the bridge over the tracks in these two options would help stitch together the pedestrian environment and connect the Village Center to stores on Garth Road.

Group 1:  Transportation alternatives: parking shuttles, bike lanes, bike parking  Cultural center, recreation center, pool  Senior housing (below market price)  Public and open space  LEED (“green”) construction with solar panels  Library book drop/library book vending machine  Mix of housing, diversity, more studios and one bedrooms

Group 2:  Support for mixed-use: residential units with retail amenities  Considerations: o Noise abatement o Connectivity with Village Center o Improve traffic conditions o Entertainment (multi-use theater) o Pedestrian access improvements o Possibility to include a public pool o Bicycle friendly o Greenery Group 3:  Need unique amenities to bring people downtown (restaurants, entertainment, services) o Theater (i.e. Jacob Burns) o Restaurants o Child care  Theater is a desired amenity but is there a market?  Apartments will bring pedestrian traffic/visitors downtown  Bronxville is positive example of a downtown, it has a diversity of uses and users  Mix of opinions about desire for additional parking (above what is there now and what will serve development).  Platform over tracks will help connect area with potential development on Scarsdale Ave.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 13

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #2

Group 4:  Public space should be publicly accessible  Water feature and great public space  “Class A” building. Think about function, use, architecture, materials, & “green building” elements.  Have uses around the clock  Consider flexible office space as a use (i.e. WeWork)  Platform over track will dissipate noise from train  Consider linear park along Scarsdale Ave and Popham Road, terrace to follow slope. Think High Line!  Beatty Lot – Can it be used for community benefit (i.e. theater, community space, or recreation)

Group 1:  Look at entire downtown. The Freightway site should be planned within the wider context of downtown (Village Center). A master plan should be developed.  The plan should look at traffic (consider traffic issues into Greenburgh). This is an opportunity to work with other municipalities.  Need a parking study that looks at history, present needs and future needs.  Consider the possibility of going underneath the rail tracks to free up streetscapes and pedestrian walkways.  Preserve pedestrian access between Scarsdale Avenue and Garth Road.  Integrate three retail centers – Garth Road, Scarsdale Avenue, and Downtown. Group 2:  Include bike parking – even bicycle valet parking.  Movie theater is desired, but there are complications (i.e. is there a market).  Tax issues (property tax).  Sensitivity to adjacent neighborhood associations.  Flexibility regarding future of transportation (driverless cars). Group 3:  The difference in units for between option 1 and 3 doesn’t appear to be significant enough to jus- tify (from a financial perspective) replacing the garage. Would this option be financially feasible? Group 4:  Concern about noise in Overhill neighborhood train sound echoes off building. A platform over track might help  Concern about light pollution.  Think about future conversion of parking space if it isn’t needed.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 14

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #3

Public Workshop #3 - Meeting Record Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 This report summarizes the third and final public workshop which was held on November 13th in Village Hall. There were approximately 50 people in attendance. The meeting was recorded by Scarsdale Public TV and the recording is available online at www.scarsdale.com/fw.

The workshop began with a welcome from Jon Mark, Chair of the Freightway Steering Committee who explained the purpose of the planning effort. Representatives from BFJ Planning then provided an overview of the site and previous public meetings and outreach.

Frank Fish, Principal at BFJ Planning then provided an overview of the Freightway Site, explained the scope and timeline of the study, and discussed the history of planning efforts involving the Freightway site. The presentation continued with a synopsis of the different types of public outreach which have occurred. BFJ and the Freightway Steering Committee have previously had two public meetings, three walking tours, three focus groups, an online survey, and intercept surveys of commuters and merchants. Mr. Fish summarized the results of the public outreach, especially as it pertained to parking, land use and architecture, community benefits, and traffic.

Noah Levine, Associate at BFJ Planning, explained how the public outreach led to the creation of a Vision for the Freightway site. This Vision contains five principles, as listed below. The full presentation (see Appendix) has more details on each principle.

1. Improve Parking and Circulation 2. Encourage mixed-use development supportive of the Village Center 3. Ensure Contextual Development 4. Connect and integrate the Freightway Site with the Village Center 5. Include environmentally sustainable development

The presentation then continued with a discussion of four development scenarios. These scenarios vary by their scale and location. Scenario 1 includes developing on the Open Lot and refurbishing the Freightway Garage; Scenario 2 is similar to Scenario 1, but includes a platform over the Metro North Railroad Tracks with the potential for a public plaza at the Scarsdale Avenue and Popham Road intersection. Scenario 3 would redevelop the entire Freightway site and replace the Freightway Garage; and Scenario 4 would redevelop the entire site and develop over the Metro North Railroad tracks to Scarsdale Avenue. It was explained that certain public benefits such as a park and a plaza on a platform over the tracks, and replacing the existing garage, and creating cultural/arts spaces would have substantial costs and would need to be offset with increased residential density to make it financially feasible for a developer.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 15

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #3

BFJ Planning described the range of school children that might be expected under each scenario. The consultants used conservative assumptions based on comparable sites in the area. Regardless of the scenario, it was explained that multi-family development would be expected to create more tax revenue than the cost to educate the additional children in the school district. Therefore, the development should have a positive fiscal impact on the school district. It should also have a positive fiscal impact on Village services.

After the conclusion of the presentation, BFJ Planning staff set up five work stations for attendees to ask specific questions and provide feedback on the themes covered in the presentation. The work station categories were:

1. Vision, 2. Traffic and Parking, 3. Design / Architecture, 4. Mix of Uses / Community Benefits / Phasing, and 5. Impacts (Fiscal, Schools, Economy).

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 16

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #3

Vision Workstation: Specific comments provided on the vision are listed below:

 The vision should direct a developer to preserve the existing pedestrian connection from Greyrock Road to the Scarsdale Train Station along the railroad tracks, and to beautify the Freightway garage if it is refurbished instead of fully redeveloped. It was suggested that this be done with hanging plants or evergreen trees.  Development at the site can help link the Village Center to the Bronx River Pathway. Westchester County Parks is planning to construct a portion of the Bronx River Pathway north of the Freightway site that would complete the existing trail between Bronxville and the Kensico Dam. The Freightway site could help connect the Village Center to the Bronx River Pathway, and a development should provide amenities for the walkers, joggers, bicyclists, and families that might be traveling to/from Scarsdale to the Pathway.  The Vision should specify that contextual development includes nearby single-family homes. Residents were concerned that due to the site topography, the development would be tall enough to infringe on other homeowner’s privacy.

Traffic and Parking Workstation: Most of the concerns about Traffic and Parking revolved about where the parking would be and how it would be configured under each development scenario. In all development scenarios, the goal is to be sure there is no loss of existing parking.

Some participants commented that development around the Freightway site should prioritize pedestrians and be constructed to increase pedestrian safety.

Design / Architecture Workstation: Comments at the Design / Architecture work station were focused on the aesthetics of the building and the quality of the materials. Participants at the station agreed with the Vision which states “architecture should be contextual with the village center in terms of style, materials, and detailing”, but were concerned that a development would not adhere to it. It was explained that the Freightway site is village-owned, and therefore the Village has some control. Any development would have to adhere to a Request for Proposals (RFP) that would be written by the Village, and would likely require zoning amendments. The RFP and zoning changes would give the public numerous opportunities to comment on the development’s design and materials.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 17

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #3

Residents commented that they did not like the appearance of some new buildings in Scarsdale, but generally did like Christie Place, which was developed on village-owned land.

Another design question was why the Vision only took Village-owned land into account. Commenters thought that including adjoining properties in development schemes would allow for more attractive and inventive designs. The Freightway Steering Committee understands that developers may assemble properties adjacent to the Freightway site for their own development plans, but believes that limiting the Vision to Village-owned land is most appropriate for this study.

Mix of Uses / Community Benefits / Phasing Workstation: Participants seemed interested in having some unique type of retail at the Freightway Site. There was a discussion about different types of “experiential retail” which is one sector of brick- and-mortar stores which is gaining momentum, despite retail attrition due to online shopping. There was a conversation about the potential for restaurants, art galleries and stores, health and fitness facilities, art galleries, and theatres.

There was also discussion of the potential to bridge over the tracks and the potential costs and hurdles involved to make that happen. Some residents expressed that while the platform over the tracks could be good if it was a park, it might be too difficult and cost prohibitive for a developer. There was also skepticism about building a “tunnel,” which was a concern expressed for a prior proposed development for the site in the early 1990s. It was explained that this concept is different from the prior proposal.

Impacts (Fiscal, Schools, Economy) Workstation: The presentation showed approximate costs associated the four development scenarios. This was meant to show the costs of each portion of the project, including repairing or demolishing the Freightway garage, decking over the Metro North railroad tracks, and providing structured parking underneath a proposed development. A meeting attendee commented that these individual costs should have been presented in context to the overall project cost, so they could be put in a better perspective. Other comments were about whether the development would have middle income housing, and about the total number of units.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 18

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #3

Following the discussions at each Work Stations, the public was invited to participate in a town hall meeting where the floor was opened to the public to voice their concerns, recommendations, and feedback about the Vision. Specific comments made during this segment are provided below.

 How can residents be sure that the development will have good design and be made of high-quality materials? Any development would be required to adhere to an RFP, which would be written by the Village. Because the development is on public land, the public has a say on the design and materials. Christie Place is the product of a similar style public process that would occur for the Freightway site.  Will these units be rental, condos, or a mix? The RFP cannot specify whether residential units would be rented or sold.  What are the comparable developments like in other places? Villa BXV is a market-rate condo building in Bronxville that attracts empty-nesters who are from Bronxville but don’t want to maintain a large house.  What are the affordable housing requirements? Is there the potential for middle-income housing? Ten percent of this development would have to be available for a family making up to 80 percent of the median income of Westchester County. There was a discussion of middle income housing for those between 80% and 120% of median income. North Castle was cited as a town that has both an affordable housing and a middle income housing provision.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 19

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Meeting #3

The public workshop drew a crowd of approximately 50 in the Scarsdale Teen Center that was engaged in the current issues facing the Scarsdale community, and provided feedback on the proposed Vision for the Freightway Site. The major feedback drawn from the public workshop includes but is not limited to the topics below:

. Contextual Design and Architecture: In general, residents agreed that the Freightway garage needed to be repaired or demolished, and that using a portion of the site for residential development would pay for those repairs and help bring additional vitality into the Village Cen- ter. The biggest concern regarding the four development scenarios was how the Village residents could ensure that the development would be attractive, made of high-quality materials, and have a height and density that was contextual to the Village Center. . Development Impacts from Comparable Sites: Attendees were very interested in the comparable sites presented by Freightway Steering Committee and BFJ Planning. Villa BXV seemed to be the most similar in terms of type of residential development, and Christie Place would be the most similar from design and public process. The study of comparable sites is especially important because it indicates that similar development to the one that would be at Freight- way have not added many school children into their respective school district. It also indicates that the development should generate more revenue than it would cost to educate the children who lived there, and should have a positive fiscal impact on the Village. . Exchange of Density for Community Amenities: Attendees agreed that the Village should enter into an agreement with a builder for new residential development at the Freightway site in exchange for public benefit, and residents discussed various desired public benefits. Some examples of questions that will need to be further discussed are whether the Village will sell or lease the land, how much they will charge, and who will retain parking revenue. The Visioning process does not get into these details, but rather attempts to illustrate the community’s concerns and desires around the development site. . Affordable / Middle Income Housing: Attendees requested clarification on the amount of affordable housing that would be required in a development on the Freightway site. The Village of Scarsdale has a fair and affordable housing ordinance1 that requires any residential building with at least 10 multifamily units to have ten percent of units dedicated as affordable housing. For example, a multifamily residential building with 15 units would have to provide two affordable units (1.5 affordable units is rounded up to 2). There was also an expressed desire for moderate income housing to fill in the demand gap between affordable housing and market rate housing which some people in the Scarsdale workforce (i.e. teachers, police offices) may not be able to afford.

1 Village Code. Chapter 310, Article XVII: Fair and Affordable Housing

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 20

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

Online Public Survey - Summary Report

An electronic survey was developed for the Freightway Site Redevelopment Study. The survey was posted online and was up for approximately 2 months (July 24th to September 15th). The Survey was widely publicized through e-blasts, flyers, social media (i.e. Facebook), and other means. 474 responses were received.

D A 16% 15%

B C 25% 44%

250 205 200

150 101 89 100 72

50 7 0 0‐4 years 5‐9 years 10‐19 years 20+ years I do not live in the area

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 21

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

A “word cloud” was generated for the next two open ended questions. The word cloud visually represents responses. Words listed more frequently are shown with a larger font size.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 22

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

Multi‐family Other Ahouseho Other I live Home 2% ld without (please alone. 10% children. specify) 5% 12% 6%

Ahouseho ld with grown A household with pre‐ Single Family children school or school aged Home that no children. 88% longer live 53% at home, common…

Monthly Never 13% 2%

No Yes 39% 2‐3 times per 43% week 54% Weekly 31% Sometimes 18%

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 23

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

140 133 116 120 100 80 60 51 45 40 29 16 14 10 20 3 0 Walk Drive more Get Don't use Bus / Other Drive less Taxi Bike than 1/2 dropped off the station shuttle (please than 1/2 mile and specify) mile and park (driver) park (driver)

120% 97% 100% 77% 80% 74%

60%

40%

20% 13% 15% 7% 9% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% For commuter parking For parking to shop/dine locally For parking to work locally

Daily Weekly Monthly Never

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 24

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

45% 41% 40% 37% 35% 30% 25%

20% 15% 15% 10% 7% 5% 0% No opinion Not enough The right amount Too much

60% 50% 50% 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 10% 0% Demand for parking will Demand for parking will Demand for parking will No opinion increase stay the same decrease

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 25

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

Answer Choices Responses

Maintain sufficient amount of parking spaces and improve parking accessibility 57.53% 233 Connect and integrate the site with the Village Center 44.44% 180 Improve the appearance of the Village Center & train station area 44.20% 179 Improve traffic circulation and accessibility (for car, pedestrian and bicycle) 38.27% 155 Provide mixed‐use development (including residential) 24.20% 98 Provide new shopping and job opportunities 23.70% 96 Create a public plaza or gathering space 17.04% 69 Repair garage and maintain existing site 15.56% 63 Incur minimal fiscal impacts on the Village 11.11% 45 Strengthen village tax base 10.37% 42 Incur minimal impacts on the school district 9.88% 40 Other (please specify) 7.41% 30

(Weighted Average)

4 3.5 3 3.41

2.5 2.84 2.77 2.59 2 2.38 1.5

1 0.5 0 Mixed use Senior Housing Apartments marketed Multi‐family housing Affordable/Workforce (commercial first floor to younger adults (apartments/condos) Housing with residential or (millennials) office above)

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 26

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Public Online Survey

5 4.37 4.5 4.25 4.2 4 3.74 3.4 3.28 3.5 3.08 3.07 3 2.5 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

70.00% 65.99% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 34.01% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Yes No

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 27

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Commuter and Merchant Survey

Commuter and Merchant Survey Summary

COMMUTER SURVEY Three members of BFJ Planning administered surveys to Metro North Commuters at the Scarsdale Train Station between 6:00 AM and 9:15 AM on Tuesday, August 22, 2017. The consultant team administered 116 surveys to commuters leaving the Scarsdale Train Station heading towards Grand Central Terminal. Weather at the time of the survey was pleasant, and there were no major conditions that would have made the survey date an atypical summer workday.

The Freightway site is used primarily for commuter parking, therefore it was important to discuss the area with those most familiar with the area. The purpose of the survey was to learn about how commuters feel about the Freightway site in its current form, and what their priorities were for the site. The survey asked short questions about the site is used and what topics needed to be considered when creating a development vision. The surveys were short (to accommodate commuters with limited time on the platform), and consisted of four questions:

1. Where do you live? (Refer to map on the back of page) 2. What words come to mind when you think of the existing Freightway site? 3. What words come to mind when you think of what the Freightway site should be? 4. What priorities or issues do you think should be addressed in this plan? This was not a scientific survey. Respondents were approached by the survey team as they waited for the train, and were arbitrarily presented with the survey opportunity.

In general, respondents felt that parking was a very important issue at the Freightway site, and in the Village Center overall. The greatest concerns about the site’s current condition were traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, and maintenance of the site and structures. Many respondents wanted future development on the site to be dedicated fully to parking. Other respondents supported some kind of development as long as commuter parking would be retained. Requests for development included public space, restaurants or cafés, and convenience retail, but not at the expense of retail in the Village Center.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 28

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Commuter and Merchant Survey

For the purposes of this question, the area surrounding the Freightway site was divided into four geographies. Area A is located in the Village of Scarsdale within a half-mile of the Freightway site, Area B is located outside the Village of Scarsdale but within a half-mile of the site, Area C is the Village of Scarsdale over one half-mile from the site, and Area D is all other areas.

Approximately 40 percent of respondents stated they lived within the Village of Scarsdale but over one-half mile from the Freightway site (Area C). Approximately 30 percent of respondents stated they lived in outside of the Village of Scarsdale but within a half-mile of the Freightway site, and approximately 20 percent of respondents stated they lived outside of the Village of Scarsdale (Area B) and more than one-half mile from the Freightway site (Area D). The area with the least amount of respondents was within the Village of Scarsdale and within a half-mile of the Freightway site (Area A).

Responses to this question were somewhat varied. The majority of the responses had a negative tone. Respondents stated that the garage was ugly, an eye sore, old, and decrepit. Some respondents stated that the garage was crumbling, poorly maintained, felt seedy, and needed more and better lighting. Others thought the Freightway site was congested, had poor circulation, and was dangerous for pedestrians. Some respondents affirmed the Freightway site was convenient, useful, a good use of the space, and that it serves its purpose of vehicle parking for commuters. Other responses were more neutral; respondents stated they thought the site was decent, passable, necessary, and fine. Some respondents said they didn’t think much about the site, and simply used it or passed by it on their way to the train.

A few respondents stated that the site could be used for something other than parking, but the vast majority of respondents seemed to appreciate the Freightway site for its commuter parking, even if they had complaints about its design or maintenance.

Respondents to this question emphasized the need for parking at the site, and in Scarsdale in general. Many respondents said the site should be kept as it is, and others said the site should be completely dedicated to parking with new and expanded parking structures. Respondents highlighted the need for commuter parking for Scarsdale residents, other commuters, and Garth Road shoppers. Respondents also highlighted the need for improved site design, traffic flow, and pedestrian safety. Other respondents saw the Freightway site as an opportunity to create mixed- use or residential development, provided that parking could be taken care of on-site, and no commuter spaces would be lost. Respondents pointed to recent developments within the Village, and developments in Bronxville when mentioning their desire for more restaurants, public space, or convenience retail. Respondents agreed that development at the site should support the

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 29

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Commuter and Merchant Survey

Village Center. Specific suggestions included a covered pedestrian walkway, less expensive parking, and outdoor dining in a public space.

Many responses to this question include requests that the study should focus on parking design and capacity, traffic congestion, and pedestrian safety. In particular, traffic congestion and pedestrian safety were issues that made the experience of using the Freightway site less pleasant. Respondents also wanted any development to be designed to match the Village Center in design and quality of construction, and to have a maintenance plan that would ensure its upkeep. A minority of respondents suggested other areas of study, including possible development impacts to the Village’s tax base, school system, and other Village services. Respondents wanted any site development to support the Village Center and Garth Road retail, and desired phased construction that would lessen its impact on retail and commuters.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 30

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Commuter and Merchant Survey

MERCHANT SURVEY BFJ Planning administered in-person surveys of merchants between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM on Tuesday, August 22, 2017. 21 in-person surveys were conducted at various businesses along Garth Road and Scarsdale Avenue in the vicinity of the Freightway site.

The purpose for the survey was to understand what merchants thought of the site in its current form, and what they thought it could be in the future. Merchants offer a unique perspective because their parking needs are different from that of a commuter, which the Freightway site is primarily oriented towards. Short-term parking in the Village Center is a frequently cited concern by merchants, shoppers and employees in the area.

The survey consisted of six general questions (below). This was not a scientific survey. BFJ Planning approached the merchants by going door-to-door on Garth Road and Scarsdale Avenue.

1. What words come to mind when you think of the existing Freightway site? 2. What words come to mind when you think of what the Freightway site should be? 3. What are your priorities for redeveloping the site? 4. How many employees work a normal shift? 5. Where do you and your employees park? 6. Where do you shoppers park? In general, survey respondents felt that parking conditions seriously inhibited their business. Some merchants were able to secure parking in the Freightway garage or behind their stores, but other merchants and employees used metered parking in the area. The merchants along Garth Road have different parking needs, but each felt that the situation could be improved with adding parking capacity. Merchants reported their shoppers circling the area looking for parking, having to leave their store to pay parking meters, or cancelling appointments if parking could not be found.

Respondents generally thought the site worked well for commuters, but that it did not support their businesses. Merchants remembered when a portion of the Freightway site had been metered parking, and felt that scenario supported them better than the current one. Merchants also stated congestion around the site spilled over onto Garth Road and created bad conditions for pedestrians and their business.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 31

Appendix A: Public Outreach Summaries – Commuter and Merchant Survey

Merchants wanted any development on the site to provide more parking that would be reserved for shoppers and merchants, but otherwise did not have strong feelings about the type development might take place on the site. Many saw residential development on the site as good for their business, but were more pressed by the desire for parking capacity. Although more people in the vicinity of their businesses would be good, merchants expressed their fear of going out of business before the construction would be completed. Merchants explained that existing congestion and lack of parking was tough on their business, and they thought construction would only make that worse.

Merchants responded that they wanted their needs incorporated into site design through expanded parking. They requested parking specifically for merchants and employees in addition to parking for shoppers. Merchants supported residential development, provided that parking, traffic, and construction impacts could be worked out.

Most merchants along Garth Road had only a few employees (1-5) working at any given time. Some of the stores had up to 15.

Some merchants were able to park directly behind their store, but others parked in hourly parking on the street, in the Freightway site, or paid to park in the Freightway garage. Employees reported struggling to find parking and receiving parking tickets for parking illegally or not paying for a new round of parking at the meter.

Merchants and shoppers reported that shoppers park wherever they are able, but generally in metered parking along Garth Road. Some merchants on Scarsdale Avenue had parking behind their store for shoppers. Merchants reported that parking was much easier on the weekend when shoppers could park at the Freightway site. Depending on the type of business, merchants desired spaces for shoppers whose visits would last no more than fifteen minutes.

FREIGHTWAY SITE REDEVELOPMENT STUDY 32