davidsstudy for the city ofisland new rochelle
city of new rochelle/kpf/arup/sbi october 11, 20111 davids island
2 3 letter from mayor noam bramson For almost two generations, Davids Island has both enchanted and bedeviled New Rochelle. It is easy to understand why. There is nothing quite like it: a nearly eighty-acre blank canvas, situated within the largest and most densely populated metropolitan area in America, visible from nearly every portion of our coastline and owned by the people of New Rochelle.
But while Davids Island has inspired grand plans, all have faltered in the face of economic, environmental or political obstacles. Today, half a century after the closure of Fort Slocum, the island’s future remains unsettled – its potential for public enjoyment and benefit, like the island itself, just out of reach.
In September 2010, New Rochelle opened a new chapter in Davids Island’s history. Determined to avoid the mistakes of the past, the City resolved neither to advance concepts without first testing their value and viability, nor to react to concepts without first establishing a homegrown, community-supported vision.
Acting on this new strategy was a volunteer Task Force composed of neighborhood representatives, development experts, environmental advocates and public officials from various levels of government. Together, the Task Force members reflected the spectrum of perspectives that have traditionally had an interest in – and often clashed over – Davids Island. The fact that the Task Force was able to work collaboratively and collegially is, in itself, evidence that historic divisions can be overcome in favor of a fresh consensus. For its hard work, open-minded spirit and creative energy, the Task Force has earned the gratitude of all people in New Rochelle.
The findings and conclusions of the Task Force have been tested, illustrated and greatly enhanced by the planning professionals of KPF, ARUP and SBI – among the very best in the world. Rarely has such a generous gift of expertise been donated to a municipality, and I hope that the experience of addressing a site as unique and interesting as Davids Island provides some measure of compensation.
The report that follows reflects the insights of the Task Force and the analytical skill of KPF, ARUP and SBI. It constitutes the most rigorous, comprehensive and useful examination of re-use options for Davids Island that has ever existed, and it will be an invaluable tool for the City Council and the people of New Rochelle as we strive together to shape the future of this remarkable place.
Mayor Noam Bramson
4 5 letter from davids island task force The Davids Island Task Force was created to examine the challenges and opportunities energy neutrality to innovative waste management, can and should be a defining feature surrounding a unique waterfront asset and to assist the City Council in shaping an of any re-use plan. In addition to enhancing the overall quality and marketability of any achievable, community-based vision for the Island’s future. In approaching this mission, the development, sustainable design and operation may also help to reduce infrastructure costs, Task Force sought to honor several over-arching principles: mitigate negative development impacts, and attract public and/or private financing. The range of options for sustainable design and operation is dramatically larger today than • Recognize and take full advantage of the unique nature and value of Davids Island; during any previous consideration of re-use plans for Davids Island. • Draw upon and respect public input from New Rochelle and our region; Access Should Minimize Car-Dependency: Water-borne transportation, coupled with surface • Appropriately balance environmental, economic and social concerns and objectives; transportation between the downtown central parking district and any ferry embarkation • Enable the public to better achieve and enjoy access to the waterfront; point(s), is likely to be the only cost-effective and least impactful means of providing access to Davids Island, and would also help integrate the Island into the downtown commercial • Demonstrate and advance a commitment to sustainability; and economy. The prohibition of cars on the Island would reduce infrastructure costs and • Consider economic and fiscal constraints to ensure that plans are realistic. reinforce sustainability principles. Bridge access, although not recommended, is nonetheless examined in this report for the sake of completeness. The Task Force conducted a comprehensive assessment of the Island, researched its history and current conditions, and entertained a variety of potential re-use scenarios. Implementation Should Be Phased: Re-use plans for Davids Island can and should be phased. Immediate steps should concentrate on facilitating passive public access to the We did not attempt to achieve consensus on a single, specific re-use plan, but rather to Island for kayakers and boaters and on encouraging greater public awareness of and illustrate the probable benefits, impacts and obstacles associated with a spectrum of options exposure to the Island’s potential value. Short-term development should be self-contained, and to provide tools for evaluating the consistency of such options with the principles above. sustainable and consistent with a longer-term vision for the Island, and should serve as a Clarity in the City’s goals and expectations, coupled with additional outreach to the public catalyst for future development. and stakeholders, will maximize the prospects the successful re-use of Davids Island. The Members of the Davids Island Task Force express thanks to the City Council for the The Task Force’s chief conclusions and recommendations are as follows: opportunity to participate in this exciting and engaging exercise. We acknowledge the guidance and support of City staff, including Commissioner of Development Michael Slightly More Than Half Of The Island Is Developable: Approximately 45 of the Island’s 78 Freimuth, Planning Director Eleanor Sharpe and Senior Project Manager Suzanne Reider. acres could be developed. This figure accounts for shoreline setbacks, probable sea level rise, And we express great appreciation to KPF/ARUP, whose donation of time and expertise the presence of a Consolidated Edison easement, and a variety of other constraints. The 33 contributed immeasurably to the professionalism and thoroughness of our report. non-developable acres could, nonetheless, serve a variety of public functions, and the use and condition of this additional acreage should be integrated into any overall plan for Davids Task Force Members were deliberately selected to represent a wide array of constituencies, Island. viewpoints and interests. Our exchange of ideas and perspectives was consistently enlightening and thought provoking. After more than a year of working together, Environmental Remediation Is Necessary & Costly: Significant and costly environmental differences of opinion about Davids Island still remain, but we are firmly united in the belief remediation will be a necessary component of any plan entailing meaningful human access that Davids Island holds significant potential for our community and region, and that the to the Island. The required scope of such remediation will depend upon the intensity and time to explore this potential is now. nature of intended development and recommendation from DEC. It our hope that the product of our efforts will enable the City of New Rochelle to meet this Balancing Environmental & Economic Objectives Is Essential: A plan that blends private challenge in a confident and positive spirit, escape a fruitless cycle of reaction to external and public uses, with the former wholly or partially subsidizing the latter, is more likely to proposals, and instead formulate a bold, community-based vision that excites the public’s meet the tests of financial and political viability than a plan that is either exclusively private imagination and engenders the durable support necessary to sustain a long-term endeavor. or exclusively public. Especially at a time of limited public resources, the Island should, over the long-term, at least “carry its own weight” and contribute to the vitality of our local and Davids Island Task Force: Doug Hocking, Thomas Lang, Kathy Jensen-Graham, Terence Gargan, regional economy. Bonnie O’Brien, Rob Balachandran, Cesare Manfredi, Steve Levy, Christine Sculti, William Janeway, Richard Organisciak, Sara Richmond, Ellie Fredston, David Blumenfeld, Gary Trachten, Gregory Sustainable Design Presents A Key Opportunity: Sustainable design and operation, from Merchant, Mayor Noam Bramson, Council Member Albert Tarantino, Michael Yellin
6 7 table of contents
Introduction...... 10
Site Analysis...... 22
Density Scenarios...... 46
Appendix...... 76
davids island new rochelle, ny
8 9 introduction
10 11 introduction
Davids Island, named for the 19th century owner Thaddeus Davids, is a 78-acre island located about 3,000 feet from the coast of New Rochelle, in Westchester County, New York. Since it was decommissioned as the Fort Slocum army base in the 1960s, several schemes for redevelopment have been proposed. In the 1960s Consolidated Edison owned the island, but returned it to New Rochelle in 1976. In the 1980s, Xanadu Property Associates proposed a 1750 unit luxury residential development, and in 1995 the Trump Organization proposed a four tower scheme, then a scheme with multi-million dollar villas. Both of Trump’s proposals were withdrawn. In 2010, the Davids Island Task Force was established. In February 2011, the Task Force published an Interim Report, proposing a hotel and marina development for the island. Currently, no proposal for Davids Island development has been formally proposed and accepted.
The role of Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates, PC (KPF) in the Davids Island project is to present the stakeholders of New Rochelle with objective information on the history of Davids Island, zoning regulations and environmental considerations that affect the developable area of the site, a range of potential development options for the site, and initial thoughts on development option viability. Our analysis addresses seawall and zoning setbacks, future sea level rise, the Con Ed easement area, contaminated areas, previous proposals for Davids Island development, and connections to the mainland.
We also address higher level sustainability considerations for Davids Island, as based in GreeNR: New Rochelle Sustainability Plan, Green Initiatives of the New Rochelle Municipal Marina, and the Westchester Action Plan for Climate Change and Sustainable Development. Any future proposal for Davids Island should align with the sustainable and overall vision for the City of New Rochelle and Westchester County.
No scenario in this document is a scheme or development proposal for Davids Island. Rather, propose general development intensities and evaluate the fiscal, social, and environmental merits of each scenario.
This preliminary study provides a portfolio of initial concepts for David’s Island’s development. In future stages of work, a subset of these concepts may, at the City’s direction, be developed into scenarios that build upon and more fully evaluate the potential of the initial concepts. These concepts may be combined, enhanced or substituted altogether to produce more refined propositions for the island. Infrastructure technologies may be davids island, 2005 selected and innovations introduced that are beyond the scope of the initial ideas. Other considerations, such as the market and technology feasibility of transportation systems, the codification and application of land-use and zoning guidelines and the environmental appropriateness of the various infrastructure concepts may all materially change variables such as the amount and form of development on the island.
12 13 U.S.A. General Hospital, 1870 Quarter-Master Buildings, Davids’ Island, N.Y. Harbor, Proposed Water Works, U.S. Military Reservation, Fort Slocum, Davids Island, Fort Slocum, Davids Island, Davids Island, New Rochelle, 1872 1884 1884 1894 1915 1921 1961
history of davids island
Native Americans first began to visit what is today Davids Island long before European nuclear power plant. However, due to public objection, Con Ed withdrew their plan and sold the colonists arrived on the east coast of North America. Beginning in the 17th century, island back to New Rochelle for $1 in 1976. Following ten years of neglect, the city designated the Euroamericans occupied the island, which supported a farmstead, for nearly two hundred island as an urban renewal area. years. The U.S. Army established its first post there in 1862, and the island became known as Since the late 1970s, Davids Island has faced abandonment and neglect while developers and Fort Slocum. The development of Fort Slocum from the 1870s to the 1960s was influenced by city officials have continuously tried to properly utilize the island. Interested parties, such as three areas of military influence; recruitment and training; military architecture; and coastal Xanadu, Trump, Davids Island Development Group and Westchester County have proposed and urban defense. plans to determine the future of the island. In 2002 it was decided that the county would The US Army arrived on Davids Island during the Civil War and in 1862 opened a military purchase, restore, and protect Davids Island; these plans were never fully realized. hospital. After the hospital closed in 1866, the State of New York formally ceded jurisdiction Beginning in 2004, Congress, through the efforts of Representative Nita Lowey, secured a total of of the island in 1868. During the late 1860s and early 1870s, the Army used the island $26 million for building demolition and asbestos removal on Davids Island, which was completed discontinuously, until a small hiatus in 1874 when the Army abandoned the island due to its in 2009. In 2010, the mayor of New Rochelle announced plans to devise a conceptual plan for Davids dilapidated condition. In 1878, Davids Island was made a Principal Depot of the U.S. Army and Island. In September of that year, the Davids Island Task Force convened to shape and achieve a served as a military recruiting station and coastal battery, until it was deactivated in 1965. vision for the island as a destination for both residents and the surrounding region. In 1967, the City of New Rochelle purchased Davids Island for $485,000, with the goal of redeveloping the island. Con Ed then purchased the island for $3 million in 1968 as a site for a
14 15 1850 1900 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 present de camp general hospital1 1862 - 1874 fort slocum2 1878 - 1967 remediation3 2005 - 2009 [phase 1] new rochelle4 1967 - present feasibility study & city alive plan5 1967 con ed6 1968 - 1976 hotel columbia plan7 1977 xanadu8 1981 - 1992 westchester county9 1990 - 2010 trump10 1994 - 1996 davids island development group11 evolution of davids island 1994 1 In 1862, the War Department subleased the island from The $26 million project was completed in 2009. 7 In 1977, Hotel Columbia was proposed for Davids Island. The 10 In 1996 Donald Trump proposed to develop the islands Simeon Leland, an hotelier, who had recently leased it from plan included a large complex, made up by four hotels - each with as a luxury residential community. His plan called for three 4 In 1967, New Rochelle purchased the island from the Federal Thaddeus Davids, a New Rochelle ink manufacturer. The 300 rooms - a convention center, recreational facilities, shopping, 22-story buildings and one 45-story tower, a 1,000-slip Government for $485,000. After 10 years of neglect, the city government began constructing De Camp General Hospital, casino, and theatre. Island access would be water-borne with marina, a small retail complex with parking for 3,500, and a designated it an urban renewal area and sought proposals for which opened in the same year. The hospital served the U.S. one helipad to accommodate some air travel. ferry service that would provide transportation to the island. development. In 2010, the Davids Island Task Force was formed. Army through the Civil War, and closed in 1874. Trump faced community resistance and withdrew his plan 8 In 1992, Xanadu Property Associates proposed a new 5 In 1967, Getter-Green Associates conducted a feasibility study, in 1996. 2 Between 1879 and 1967, Ft. Slocum, a post of the U.S. Army, development plan to address issues of the original proposal. which produced the City Alive Plan consisting of 2 schemes: one served as a military recruiting station and coastal battery However, continued opposition from environmentalist and 11 In 1994, Davids Island Development Company, composed of primarily residential and the other primarily commercial. that helped protect the eastern approach to New York Harbor. other community groups led New Rochelle to opt out of a consortium of smaller developers, formed to create a family From 1955-1961, the island was the site of the fire control 6 In 1968, Con Ed purchased the island for $3 million as a extending Xanadu the status of designated developer. entertainment park with a water park, amphitheater, health station of the Nike missile battery, which was the world’s site for a nuclear power plant, but withdrew the plan to due club and earth science center while connecting the mainland 9 Westchester County planned to buy Davids Island first operational surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, public objection. After attempting to solicit potential plans, to the island via a magnetic monorail. and convert it into a waterfront park linked to nearby designed to protect major American cities from nuclear attack. Con Ed eventually sold the island back to New Rochelle for $1 communities by ferry. To limit the plan’s impact on marine in 1976. 3 Davids Island is currently designated as a “brownfield and plant life, the plan includes biking/hiking trails, ball site.” In 2004, Congress appropriated funds for the building fields, and playgrounds. demolition, asbestos removal, and evaluation of PCB cleanup.
16 17 fort slocum,1878-1967 city alive plan, 1967 city alive plan, 1967 hotel columbia plan, 1977
con ed property, 1968-1976 (image indicative of development) xanadu, 1981-1992 trump, 1994-1996 fort slocum (davids island), new rochelle 1961
18 19 new rochelle, westchester county & davids island, present davids island task force davids island present The Davids Island Task Force was established in September 2010 to assist the City of New Since Fort Slocum was decommissioned in 1967, many development proposals have been Rochelle in shaping and achieving a new vision for the island’s future. It is comprised of a offered for Davids Island, but none have received broad and sustained support, and all range of members, including representatives from neighborhoods, nearby municipalities and have attracted vocal opposition. The island remains a fascinating subject of debate, with environmental organizations, as well as experts in planning, development and sustainability. enormous potential and daunting obstacles existing in nearly equal measures. This booklet The Task Force formed two subcommittees to evaluate existing site conditions and consider illustrates and complements the findings of the Davids Island Task Force with respect to the options for future use. island’s history, environmental condition and development potential. It is intended to assist the City of New Rochelle in its effort to shape an achievable and publicly-supported vision for the island’s future.
20 21 site analysis
22 23 fort slocum, 1894 davids island, 2011
water grant line - 119.96 acres mean high water - 77.78 acres Water Grant Perimeter established by the Corps of Engineers in October 1879 Mean High Water - The average of all the high water heights observed over the National (First Lt. Eugene Grifin). Tidal Datum Epoch.
24 25
5 5
25 25
25 25
10 10
5 5
10 10
5 5
20 20
5 10 5 10
25 25
2050 mean high water - 66.21 acres 2080 mean high water - 55.69 acres The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation projects sea levels in the diagrams are based on the area determined by the current mean high water line, where KPF Lower Hudson Valley and Long Island to rise by two feet in 2050, and by four feet in 2080. has approximated an above-water land area of 66.21 acres in 2050 and 55.69 acres in 2080. Such a change would affect the developable area for the island. Based on the available The following analyses in this section are based on the current mean high water line and are topographic information for the island, KPF has approximated the effect sea level rise might independent of the projected sea level rises shown here. have on the above-water land area over the next 70 years. The estimates shown in the above
26 27 con ed
seawall setback - 56.82 acres con ed easement - 52.62 acres The New Rochelle’s Zoning Code stipulates the following setbacks for land along a waterfront: Consolidated Edison owns a strip of waterfront along the southern edge of the island. This 35 foot setback if seawalls are present, and 80 foot setback if there is no seawall. Subtracting the easement allows Con Ed to maintain its 345 kilowatt underwater electric cable. Of the 5.20 area of the regulated Seawall Setback, 56.82 acres remain available for development. acres, 4.20 acres are within the mean high water line. Subtracting the 4.20 acres of Con Ed Easement, 52.62 acres remain available for development.
28 29 heptachlor epoxide chromium (pesticide)
pcbs 1879
chromium
pcbs
arsenic
unidentified potential contamination chromium; lead arsenic arsenic; lead mercury lead; chromium lead; mercury; arsenic; chromium lead; arsenic; chromium
present potentially contaminated areas - 52.34 acres incinerator zone - 49.61 acres From 2005 to 2009, the US Army Corps of Engineers demolished ninety-four structures and also performed Originally, there was a water inlet between the Incinerator Zone and Davids Island, which is an asbestos abatement project on Davids Island. Simultaneously, the City of New Rochelle and County of now infilled by the significant amounts of ash and slag from the former burning of waste on Westchester conducted a Site Investigation as part of the Davids Island Environmental Restoration Project, to Davids Island. We’ve provided a 50 foot buffer from the incinerator site to the developable determine the full extent of the island’s contamination. It revealed the entire site had been affected by polycyclic land footprint. Subtracting the 2.73 acres of Incinerator Zone, 49.61 acres remain available aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides and metals. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in select for development. areas. The potentially contaminated areas are primarily where former drums and transformers were located In the context of an overall remediation plan for the island, it may be sensible and cost- on the site. Groundwater samples showed no elevated concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or effective to move contaminants from other parts of Davids Island to the Incinerator Zone. semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). Subtracting the 0.28 acres of Contaminated Areas, 52.34 acres remain available for development. 30 31 total setback area - 17.23 acres additional zoning regulations - 45.10 acres The New Rochelle Zoning Code requires a 35 foot setback from the mean high-tide line The New Rochelle Zoning Code requires a minimum of 40% of Davids Island remain open, and a where there is a seawall, and an 80 foot setback in areas where there is no seawall. The minimum of 25% of the site be accessible to the public. The Code also stipulates a Vegetated Buffer above setback also includes the Con Ed easement as well as a 50 foot buffer around the should cover a minimum of 50% of the side of Davids Island that faces the mainland or Long Island incinerator zone. Such setbacks create a continuous waterfront yard around David’s Island, Sound. The hatched areas in the above diagram represent these specified areas. The shaded area approximately 17.23 acres. Subtracting the 17.23 acres of required setbacks areas, 60.55 acres represents the total land area of 45.10 acres that is available for development within the city’s zoning remain available for development. regulations. The shape of the 45.10 acres is arbitrary and not indicative of the actual location for site development; this would be determined by future development scenarios.
32 33 site remediation Previous development on Davids Island has led to general and acute site contamination. A former incinerator zone occupies 2.73 acres of the southeast portion of the island. The most serious hot spots of localized contamination have been removed, but metals and other contaminates remain in localized areas around drums and transformers. In 2004, Congress appropriated funds for building demolition, option 1: build a building or structure asbestos removal, and evaluation of PCB cleanup, and over the contaminated site. between 2005 and 2009, the Army Corps of Engineers performed these tasks. The $26 million project was completed in 2009.
Cleaning Davids Island through soil remediation allows for the reuse of a previously developed and contaminated site and prevents continued degradation of the island and the Long Island Sound. The extent of future remediation depends both on the pollutants found and use intensity.
The goal of remediation is to prevent exposure of contaminants to inhabitants. A variety of methods exist to remediate contaminated land. This includes
building on or paving over contaminated soil, adding option 2: cap the contaminated site with a thick layer of clean soil over a contaminated area, soil. the depth of the cap is related to the land use. and removing polluted soil for off-site cleaning. potential areas & levels of site remediation Natural remediation methods, in which microbes high remediation digest harmful chemicals and break them into minimal remediation non-toxic components, should be used to the extent of their effectiveness, although the heavy metal contained on Davids Island likely requires other solutions. Time and cost must also be considered as part of any remediation strategy.
Currently, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is working on a site site management plan management plan for Davids Island, and final One way to evaluate the consequences of development is to anticipate the possible levels remediation recommendations and strategies will of remediation per land use and density scenario. Two general categories of remediation be determined by the experts in this department. requirements might include high-remediation and low-remediation. Ultimately, experts on KPF has illustrated three potential strategies that are option 3: scrape and remove waste hazards and environmental remediation at the DEC will determine the remediation contaminates from the site. this requires appropriate for the contamination on Davids Island. removing the entire contaminated area measures required to build on Davids Island. from davids island.
34 35 net zero energy, water, waste new rochelle sustainable design net zero energy, water, waste principles energy, water, waste
Consistent with GreeNR - the New Rochelle Sustainability Plan, the Green Initiatives of the New Rochelle solar Municipal Marina, and the Westchester Action Plan for Climate Change and Sustainable Development, solar biosmolabiomassasrs development on Davids Island should support the sustainability goals of New Rochelle. To do so, the biomass geothergeothermalmal planning of Davids Island must align with the vision of New Rochelle and address sustainability through gewindothermal a “triple bottom line” approach to environmental, social, and economic well-being. wind generate renewable energy genegeneraterate renerenewablewable energyenergy recyclrecyclinging mass transit Energy & Climate Trigerecrynclatioingn cogeneration graTyrigewatrenr astioystenm Infrastructure and buildings developed on Davids Island should utilize climate appropriate passive and led street lights graywater system active strategies to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Once the energy load is rainwagraywaterter catchm systement loracalin fwoaotde rpr coatductichmeonnt minimized, renewable energy generation should be investigated at various scales on the island. carpool/car share niglhotticallocalme fo toh dfoode rprmoal productionducti storoange dnesiigchcanighttimettinmet d ehumthe rthermalmidalific stao storagetioragne desicdesiccantcant dehum dehumidificationidification Resource Conservation & Waste Reduction electric vehicle charging station Development scenarios on Davids Island should seek to create closed loop systems for waste and water lolow-energyw-energy a activective sstrategiestrategies by encouraging conservation, minimizing waste, and increasing reuse, recycling. and efficient buildings. shadshadinging low-energy active strategies Local water collection and filtration methods, and the production of food and energy on site, will work to cushadrbcurb cuintgs cuts foster an efficient use of natural resources and materials. opceunrbdaylightingsp acceuts doaypligencompostingshptaincegs codamypoligbikesht tiparkingningg bio-retention Ecology, Biodiversity, & Public Health bcoikem ppoarsktiningg pbuiporousblkeic p arpark pavementiknsg Remediation of Davids Island should provide comprehensive improvements to the soil quality and limit nativpunativeebl veicge p vegetationtaratioks n natural ventilation the toxic stormwater runoff that contaminates water supplies, impacting public health. These changes nantuatralive vveengetitlaatiotionn building orientation will improve the area ecosystem, provide remediated green space for public use and benefit, and reduce buinaldtuinralg o vreinentitlaatitioonn light-colored pavement building orientation pollution into the Long Island Sound. pedespedestrian-orientedtrian-oriented des igdesignn hipeghd easltrian-bedo, poorrusiented pav deemseignnt passive strategies high albedo, porus pavement passive strategies Smart Growth & Economic Prosperity passive strategies Smart Growth principles should be used to create a node of activity on Davids Island. The development should foster green job growth and attract sustainable businesses to New Rochelle.
Transportation & Mobility
All forms of development on Davids Island should look to develop a walkable community with accessible amenities, to limit the need for transportation infrastructure on site thereby reducing carbon dioxide sustainable strategies for davids island emissions while promoting health and well-being. Thesusu sustainablessttaai strategiesinnaableble for the development ssttrraateg tegof Davidsiies Islandes fohavefo beenrr ddivideddaav vintoidid fourss iislslaanndd mainThe sust focusai areas:nable wastestrate gmanagement,ies for the d ewatervelop management,ment of Dav ids pedestrian Island h comfort,ave been and div energy.ided in to four ByT hcreatinge susta ain masterplanable strate gwithies ftheseor th efour dev ideaselopm ine mind,nt of NewDavids Rochelle Island will hav havee been a clean, divided into four Public Participation & Awareness main focus areas: passive strategies, low-energy active strategies, generating renewable green, energy efficient amenity in Davids Island. enermaingy fo, andcus caloresedas: lpoaossp isystemsve strate tghiesat, allolwow-ene forrg nety ac zertivoe ene strargtegiesy, wa,te gener andra tingwaste ren. Byew carebaletin g The transformation of Davids Island seeks to build on a previously developed site, protecting viable aener masterplangy, and c wloisedth t lhoeseop systemsfour ideas th inat mindallow, fNoer wnet Roc zerhelo lenee wrgilly h, wavaete ar c aleannd w, gastereen. By, energ creaytin g farmlands and agricultural areas in the process. This development can also educate residents about efaf micieasterplannt amen iwtyit inh tDhaesevids fo Islandur ideas. in mind, New Rochelle will have a clean, green, energy sustainable practices and provide an example of best practices. efficient amenity in Davids Island.
36 37
2 3 2 3 comparison of energy used to transport one passenger one mile
(btu/passenger-mile)
3,600
3,200 existing train station
2,800
2,400
2,000
1,600 bike path
1,200
800 potential ferry dock at wright island 400 potential ferry dock at 0 neptune park
private automobile electric car bus ferry boat bicycle walking
potential ferry dock
potential transit routes
new rochelle efficient transit Utilizing efficient transit within New Rochelle will help to minimize the number of Approximate travel times between the existing train station to either of the potential ferry automobiles, lower fossil fuel consumption, and reduce harmful carbon dioxide emissions docks are listed below for different means of transportation. while promoting well being and health. Due to its size, transportation to, from, and on Cars or Taxis - About 7 minutes from the train station to the potential ferry dock the island can be highly efficient. Traversing approximately 1 mile across the Long Island Sound, a slow ferry could reach Davids Island in minutes while maintaining a low BTU per Biking - About 11 minutes from the train station to the potential ferry dock passenger mile. Walking - About 33 minutes from the train station to the potential ferry dock
38 39 pedestrian priority mixed-use districts vegetation buildings with pedestrian oriented variety of services within a comfortable wide sidewalks with vegetation street frontages. walking distance of transit. and seating areas.
10 minute walk
5 minute walk 0.25 0.5 1.0 potential ferry landing MILES MILES MILE
5 minute walk 10 minute walk 20 minute walk market community center, supermarket, schools, light offices, gym, cinema, restaurants, transit nodes, large retail community farm, bus, shuttle rail station, neighborhood chains stop, dry cleaners park, small scale retail, res- taurants
pedestrian oriented design An average person will walk approximately one-quarter mile to run daily errands and as far as a half-mile to reach health rail transit systems or more specialized shops or civic uses. More than half of Davids Island falls with in a five-minute walk of the potential ferry station. walking distance from port The small scale and accessibility of the island opens up the possibility of minimizing or banning vehicles or a completely pedestrian-oriented island.
40 41 Glen Island Glen Island Glen Island Glen Island
governors island, ny davenport neck, ny
fire island, ny downtown new rochelle, ny
site scale comparisons Studying scale comparisons can help evaluate appropriate scales, proportions, and Notes: Governors Island (car-free island south of New York City); Fire Island (car-free island densities for a site. It is suitable to draw on precedents from other areas that share similar south of Long Island); Davenport Neck (residential development in New Rochelle, along characteristics and potential development typologies to what might be imagined for coast); Downtown New Rochelle Davids Island. The above diagrams help to understand the site’s size, adjacency to water, development intensity, and scale.
42 43 Glen Island Glen Island Glen Island Glen Island
oak bluffs, ma city island, ny
glen island, ny santa catalina, ca
site scale comparisons Notes: Oak Bluffs (town on Martha’s Vineyard); Glen Island (park island off coast of New Rochelle); City Island (part of Bronx, in Long Island Sound); Santa Catalina (22 miles off coast of Southern California)
44 45 density scenarios
46 47 density scenarios components of plan viability This section presents a number of possibilities for Davids Island, including open parkland, a range of residential development options, light industrial uses, and a research institute. These scenarios show indicative development statistics and infrastructure and zoning social requirements prompted by the intensity of the development.
To further refine the analysis, KPF presents a rating system to evaluate the schemes. We social benefits believe the addition of a rating system is important because it brings clarity to a rather public amenities accessible open space complex series of issues. The system is based on the three criteria for a sustainable municipal planning viability development: the social, economic and environmental impacts of a project on the community, or a “triple bottom line.” The scale is composed of a numeric range, from one to five, with three being neutral impact, five being the most positive and one being the most negative. In each scenario, we present our reasoning for each rating.
These scenarios are preliminary analyses of conervative development options. Further studies could reveal more integrated and involved ideas for future development, and might fiscal viability land include creative design solutions for a sustainable plan for Davids Island. remediation costs water infrastructure air None of the following development scenarios is a design scheme or site plan; they are future impact energy only diagrams, used to convey the ranges of development possibilities for Davids Island. plan longevity inhabitants An actual design scheme or site plan could certainly encompass elements of several of the development options depicted. economic environmental
1 negative 3 neutral 5 positive
48 49 glen island park, ny moors nature reserve, uk shelby farms, tn
port
statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
------0% - - - (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students) triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
?
scenario 1 - open parkland One option for Davids Island is to leave the island largely untouched, resulting in open status quo is maintained and no further remediation strategies are taken. Designating the parkland. The open parkland could be available for public use. Where the island is open entirety of Davids Island as open parkland would likely preclude the opportunity for future to the public, remediation likely would be required, and would necessitate minimal development, but portions of the island could be so designated in the context of an overall infrastructure development to support island visitors. Maintaining an open space on mixed-use development plan. Davids Island would preserve the natural environments, habitats and biodiversity in this area of Westchester County. It does not necessarily improve the environment, if the economic 1 social 4 environmental 3 viability 2.67 50 51 ENERGY CABLE
F
E
R R ascension island pv farm kumasi, ghana Y
P A T H
dock statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
0.02 ------33 0% - - - (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students) triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
?
scenario 2 - photovoltaic cells
Developing a PV system on Davids Island is a possibility, and this scenario proposes platting Davids Island with PV cells. The calculations presented here reflect a highly efficient PV system, and developing such a system would yield a six-year payout for the investment. At the average electricity usage for New York State, approximately 1,000 to 2,000 homes could be powered, making this scheme desirable from an economic perspective. A minimum number of workers would need ti live on the island to manage the PV farm. This scenario considers that all energy generated on Davids Island would be exported to the mainland. A portion of the island could remain open for public usage. economic 5 social 3 environmental 4 viability 4 52 53 ENERGY CABLE
F
E
R R hull, massachussetts eastern oregon brittany, france Y
P A T H
dock statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
0.02 ------33 0% - - - (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students) triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
?
scenario 3 - wind turbines Davids Island is not located in an optimal windshed area. The possibility of harnessing wind energy for use on Davids Island is marginal, and a wind farm in this location would never turn a profit. Based on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) rating map for 50m (164 ft) and 80m (262 ft) high turbines in southern New York, the average offshore wind speed for both a 50m and a 80m turbine is approximately 14-15 miles per hour. In addition to not being economically feasible, the turbines would obstruct views from the mainland and would have a significant impact on the environment. economic 1 social 3 environmental 2 viability 2 54 55 F
E
R R chatham, virginia marlborough, new zealand hartford, connecticut Y
P A T H
dock statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
0.27 ------240 0% - - - (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students) triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
Y ? ? Y Y
scenario 4 - greenhouse Good solar exposure and a moderate climate on Davids Island provide an opportunity for commercial Typical crops could include lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries, beans, and peppers. A conservative estimate food production via high yield hydroponic greenhouses. Traditional agriculture would require extensive for the annual yield per greenhouse is approximately 20 pounds of produce. The site accommodates 440 remediation of the soil, but these slab-on-grade structures could prevent direct exposure to soil greenhouses, which could yield 8,800 pounds (4.4 tons) of produce annually. Capital costs for building contaminants while producing food for the City of New Rochelle. Local food production reduces the greenhouses, in addition to systems for composting on or off site and distributing the food beyond negative environmental impact of the transportation of food, known as food-miles. Greenhouse-grown Davids Island must be considered to establish a viable model. produce also minimizes yield variation due to weather and hydroponic systems use 1/3 less water than traditional soil based agriculture. economic 1 social 4 environmental 2 viability 2.33 56 57 governors island woods hole scripps institution of oceanography
port
statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
0.69 238 164 74 21.1 485 16.3 39 336 554 165% 299 718 - (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students) triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
Y(1) Y Y Y Y Y Y (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. scenario 5 - hotel / conference & r&d This scenario represents a low-density resort and research institute, with some commercial space, associated retail and restaurant space. To avoid a bridge requirement, this scenario provides housing on Davids Island for the workers at the Research Center. Some type of heavy barge pier would be required to transfer laboratory and technical equipment. There is the potential for a large future tax base, which makes it a positive option from an economic perspective. Most of the site would be a public park or nature reserve, and the research institute could bring further prestige to the City of New Rochelle. economic 4 social 5 environmental 3 viability 4 58 59 oak bluffs, massachusetts tybee island, georgia stockholm, sweden
port
statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
0.28 64 64 - 2.1 235 6.9 67 133 54 41% - - - (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)
triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
Y scenario 6 - low density residential 1/2 acre lots
This scenario represents a low density housing option, which primarily includes large single- family homes (approximately 6,000 sf) on half-acre lots. Because of the low development intensity, no commercial space is provided on the island. The low density development does not maximize the tax base for the area, and because the homes are large, the site coverage on the island will be high, which is less desirable from an environmental perspective. A large public park could be provided in this option, which is positive from a social perspective. economic 2 social 4 environmental 2 viability 2.67 60 61 provincetown, ma columbus, ohio houston, tx
port
statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
1.03 575 418 157 22.8 1,032 33.7 149 685 248 36% - - 19.0 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)
triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
Y(1) ? Y Y Y Y ? scenario 7 - low & medium density (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. residential This scenario represents a low to medium density housing option, which includes single- the development costs for the island. A more diverse population is accommodated in this family homes (approximately 2,450 sf) on 1/4 acre lots, row houses (approximately 2,400 scenario, and a park could be provided, yielding high marks from a social perspective. It sf), and multi-unit buildings (housing units approximately 1,250 sf). The buildings in this will be difficult to cluster housing in this scenario, and the large site coverage yields low scenario mostly are large, single family homes. The higher density development does yield a environmental marks. higher tax base, but the infrastructure requirements to support the population will increase
economic 3 social 4 environmental 2 viability 3 62 63 causeway
peng chau island, amsterdam, netherlands boston, ma hong kong
port
statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
1.96 1,415 435 980 68.2 2,812 94.5 307 1,992 831 42% 491 1,178 19.2 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)
triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service
Y Y Y Y Y Y scenario 8 - high density residential row houses This scenario represents a high-density housing with a small resort/hotel. Row houses a tax base to cover the cost. This scenario triggers the need for a causeway or bridge, which the tax (approximately 1,750 sf) are the primary housing typology, with some multi-unit buildings base would not cover. Additionally, the causeway/bridge construction would require significant (housing units approximately 1,250 sf). Because of the ability to cluster housing and coordination with local, county, and state governments. development, as well as the provision of park space and other public amenities, it ranks high from a social perspective. The higher density development requires a large amount of infrastructure investment; however, the population density is not high enough to yield economic 1 social 5 environmental 2 viability 2.67 64 65 causeway
london, england vancouver, canada trump place, ny
port
statistics
Single School Age Peak Retail Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit Housing Residential Population Children Employees - Employees - Jobs/ Tourist Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Density Population Density (2) (2) Outgoing (2) Incoming Residents Hotel Rooms Population person
FAR units units units DU/DUA persons pop/dev ac persons persons persons % rooms guests sq ft
3.17 2,511 384 2,127 174.0 4,579 158.6 357 3,610 1,622 45% 491 1,178 21.5 (1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students) triggers
Community Piped District Industrial Onshore Large Island Septic/Other Sewage Energy Anaerobic Tidal Pkg/ Ferry/Barge Shuttle Treatment System Plant Digestion Power School Causeway Car Limit Facility Service scenario 9 - high density residential Y Y Y ? Y Y Y Y multi unit housing This scenario represents a high density housing option, including a mix of single family housing (approximately 1,850 sf), row houses (approximately 1,450 sf), and multi-unit buildings (housing or bridge, which the tax base in this option would not be able to cover. The causeway/bridge construction would require significant coordination with local, county, and state governments. This scenario creates a town on the island, which has significant social and environmental impacts for the island, and could direct investment away from Downtown New Rochelle. economic 1 social 2 environmental 1 viability 1.33 66 67 3500 ft.
750 ft.
brooklyn bridge city island road
3700 ft.
4000 ft. 4760 ft.
bronx whitestone bridge george washington bridge davids island
bridge scale comparisons Davids Island is located approximately 3,700 feet from the coast of New Rochelle. Some Currently, water-based transportation is the only means by which one can reach Davids development scenarios for Davids Island would necessitate the need for a causeway or Island. The waterway is a navigable area, and therefore any bridge that would be built from bridge to connect Davids Island to the mainland. Constructing such a bridge would require the mainland to Davids Island would have to be constructed to allow for boat clearance. a significant investment in local infrastructure, and the costs and benefits of constructing such a project would need to be evaluated further.
68 69 bridge construction - initial cost estimates
davids island bridge, preliminary cost breakdown
assuming 3,000 LF at 45' in width, approx two lanes, equal to 135,000 gsf
type $ per sf direct / trade costs deck 175 steel framing, deck, concrete, wp, concrete earing surface fdn 90 rail 44 $1,000/lf at two sides, or $2,000 per lf, converted to sf mep reloc & coord 15 robert moses causeway xanadu proposed bridge lighting & other 50 bridge Subtotal $ 374 50,490,000
allow add for approaches, assume equal to cost of bridge
approaches 50,490,000
total estimated bridge and approaches, trade costs 100,980,000
project logistics @ 12% 12,117,600 new subtotal 113,097,600 project general conditions @ 20% 22,619,520 new subtotal 135,717,120 contractor profit and fee @ 7.5% 10,178,784 estimated total hard costs 145,895,904
soft costs, design fees @ 20% 29,179,181 other fees and permits @ 5% 7,294,795 causeway, florida south padre island, tx estimated total soft costs 36,473,976
hard and soft costs 182,369,880 design and construction contingency @ 10% 18,236,988
estimated bridge total $ 200,606,868
sbi consultants, estimated bridge construction costs
Certain development scenarios will trigger the need for vehicular access to Davids Island which would require additional design information including geotechnical and environmental studies. Assuming a two-lane, 3,000 foot long bridge, SBI Consultants provided the above order of magnitude cost estimate in the amount of $200,606,868 which includes hard and soft costs for the bridge and approaches, as well as contingency. Since it is
a preliminary, order of magnitude estimate, SBI will revisit the assumptions stated after the mud island, tennessee rickenback causeway, miami, fl issuance of the geotechnical and environmental studies. 70 71 executive summary matrix Infrastructure triggers and zoning requirements
legend
72 73
scenario viability next steps in planning process Comparisons
PRE-PLANNING SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENT PLAN DEVELOPEMNT STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION FACILITATED STAKEHOLDER PUBLIC OUTREACH PUBLIC OUTREACH PUBLIC OUTREACH INITIAL OUTREACH OUTREACH FACILITATED STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH DEIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS EIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS PUBLIC CHARETTES
PRELIMINARY STUDY VISION/GOALS/OBJECTIVES
regulatory review, discussions, address contraints
site analysis, economic study
sustainability ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION framework, perfor- mance criteria masterplanning study of alternatives
funding, facilities, PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SELECTION benefit, fiscal studies preferred other alternative studies, development
fiscal impact, PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT financing plan development developer selection process/ proposal (1) RFEI/RFP preparation preparation FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT (2) DEIS process final plan develop- ment and presenta- tion
(3) EIS process
(1) Developer request for expressions of interest, developer request for proposals (2) NYS draft environmental impact assessment (3) NYS environment impact assessment
KPF’s survey of preliminary concepts for David’s Island takes into account the triple bottom line impact of each These “viability” scores reflect only KPF’s preliminary assessment of the three impacts taken into account. They do not scenario profiled: economic, social and environmental. Each of these three variables are evaluated for the project constitute a recommendation for one scenario over another, and they do not take into account other considerations impacts qualitatively and quantitatively: that will be of overriding importance to stakeholders, the City and the public. These other considerations might include variables such as considerations of political process, public values and preferences, regulatory compliance, civic • Economic impacts concern the fiscal consequences of the requisite development solution on the City’s tax base, values, and others. The variables not taken into account may, in fact, have greater determinative value than the triple on the City’s employment development prospects, and with respect to the City’s economic development goals; costly bottom line variables given consideration in this report. infrastructure requirements for a given scenario may lead to a relatively unfavorable assessment in this category This study may be followed by a more comprehensive and integrated planning process for the island, that will identify • Social impacts refer to the consequences of the each development scenario on the perceived quality of life and and then incorporate all of the variables deemed relevant by the City of New Rochelle and its residents and other aesthetics, including the quality and availability of open space; disruptive visual elements may lead to a relatively stakeholders. Generally speaking, KPF would expect that the City will, with public and stakeholder input, wish to unfavorable assessment in this category, while quality park and open space may lead to a relatively favorable identify a smaller number of scenarios as alternatives for further investigation. These alternatives may be designed assessment and visualized architecturally, at a schematic level, and their infrastructure and planning requirements defined in • Environmental impacts concern the strength of the scenario’s habitat conservation measures and the size of the sufficient detail, to allow for an informed public process. Once a preferred alternative is selected or, at least, identified project’s footprint in terms of energy, water, waste and carbon emissions and indicated, the more procedural environmental impact process may be used to further test viability and suitability. As previously discussed, each variable is assessed on a 5 point scale, where 1 is the most negative and 5 is the most Simultaneously, the City may wish to begin the process for soliciting and receiving feedback and proposals from positive, and where 3 represents the status quo in terms of the net effect of the scenario’s impacts. Each scenario is private sector developers. This planning process is graphically illustrated above. evaluated for each the three variables and an aggregate “viability” score derived by taking an average of the three A rigorous and broad-based public planning and feedback process will provide the City’s leaders with the guidance scores is cited. they need to select the solution for David’s Island that is most appropriate for New Rochelle.
74 75 appendix
76 77 new rochelle zoning codes
Article IX: Dimensional and Other Requirements - Building Roofs. shall be designed to minimize the visibility of roof structures, mechanical equipment and other structures normally built above the roof. Not part of 40% (331-68 Planned Waterfront Development – 8 story district) – Davids Island discussed in this section open space requirement. A. Design and development criteria. Setbacks, corner treatments, and other design details shall be used to minimize the sense - The maximum building height allowed is eight stories. of bulk of structures. Facade treatment, building materials, and ornamental elements shall - The maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR) for water-dependent permitted uses be used as appropriate to enhance and restore Fort Slocum’s historical waterfront context, shall not exceed 1.0. For one-family, two-family, and multifamily residential use, including complementing the character and scale of mainland buildings which commonly use red independent living senior developments, the FAR shall not exceed 0.75 and the density limit brick, stucco and concrete materials, have a maximum building height of eight stories, and shall not exceed 22 dwelling units per acre. For all other water-dependent special permit provide variety in building heights and widths. nonresidential uses, the FAR shall not exceed 0.40. FAR shall be calculated separately for each - Architectural Style. Future buildings shall reflect period styles and architectural details of use and shall not be cumulative for mixed-use projects. existing National Register eligible buildings - Open Space, both accessible and non-accessible to public shall be no less that 40% of DI - Buildings and spaces shall direct views and pedestrian movements towards the water total upland area. No less than 25% of w total upland area shall be accessible to the public - Any proposed marina should be located on the western edge of the Island because of - Vegetated Buffers. As viewed from the mainland or Long Island Sound, David’s Island the proximity to the existing navigational channels, the lack of underwater shoals, and the shall provide the appearance of a horizontal hedge of vegetation and tree canopy which, protection afforded from prevailing storms between ground level and 30 feet above ground level, appears no less than 50% solid, so as - Transportation to the Mainland. Waterborne public transportation is the preferred to preserve the appearance of a heavily vegetated island and to reduce the vertical scale of means of providing access to David’s Island. Access shall be provided by bridge only where buildings facing the mainland or Long Island Sound. the project proponent demonstrates, by competent financial evidence, that the proponent - Setbacks. All buildings and structures, except those needed for a water-dependent use, cannot realize a reasonable return by utilizing any other means of access to the Island. shall be set back from the mean high-tide line a minimum of 35 feet where there is a seawall, - Mainland Access Roads may be at following locations: Glen Island Access Road, Fort or 80 feet where there is no seawall, unless a greater setback is needed to provide the Slocum Road, Drake Avenue, Pelham Road, Weyman Avenue and Drake Avenue previously mentioned horizontal hedge of vegetation and tree canopy. Structures permitted within a waterfront yard area shall be durable, non-obtrusive, harmonious, and unified in Article IV: General District Regulations [10-20-2009 by Ord. No. 199-2009 terms of color and materials, including exterior lighting, walkways, fences, benches, signs, - No building or structure or parking lot or parking space shall be constructed within 75 piers, and docks. feet of the boundary of any tidal or freshwater wetland, other than boardwalks, shoreline - Traffic Implications. shall not result in mainland intersection traffic capacity below level promenades, bulkheads, piers, docks, marinas, boat ramps and boat-launching facilities, etc. of service “c” (level of service “c” is a delay at signalized intersections of less than 20 seconds and no more than 35 seconds per vehicle).
78 79 task force interim report february 2011
80 81 David's Island David's Island landLand-use use Program ScenariosLand-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion Land-use Land-use
Gross Roads/ Gross Single- Roads/ Single- Community Community Developable Infrastruc-Developable FamilyInfrastruc- Multi-Unit Mixed-useFamily Retail/Multi-UnitFacilities/ Mixed-use Retail/ Facilities/Industrial/ Industrial/ Area Total tureArea OSR Residential Total Row tureHouses Residential OSR ResidentialResidential Row HousesServicesResidentialSchoolResidential Club/Marina ServicesResort/Hotel SchoolCommercial Club/Marina UtilitiesResort/Hotel Commercial Utilities acres % %%%%%acres % %%%%%%%%%%% % %%% % %%% Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 45.10 1 - Open Parkland100% 0% 45.10 100% 100% 0%0% 0% 100% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Scenario 2 - PV Cells Scenario 45.10 2 - PV Cells 100% 10% 45.10 0%100% 0%10% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 90% 0% 0% 90% Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines Scenario 45.10 3 - Wind Turbines100% 10% 45.10 0%100% 0%10% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 90% 0% 0% 90% Scenario 4 - Green House Scenario 45.10 4 - Green House100% 10% 45.10 0%100% 0%10% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 80%0% 10% 0% 80% 10% Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 45.10 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference100% 24% 45.10 10%100% 10%24% 11% 10% 4% 10%0% 11% 0% 4% 2% 0%3% 0%16% 2% 15%3% 5% 16% 15% 5% Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached Scenario 45.10 6 - Low Density100% Detached 18% 45.10 6%100% 68%18% 0% 6% 0% 68%0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0%3% 0% 0%0% 0%3% 5% 0% 0% 5% Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density Scenario 45.10 7 - Low & Medium100% Density 22% 45.10 10%100% 41%22% 10% 10% 5% 41%0% 10% 2% 5% 2% 0%3% 2%0% 2% 0%3% 5% 0% 0% 5% Scenario 8 - High Density Rows Scenario 45.10 8 - High Density100% Rows 24% 45.10 10%100% 0%24% 31% 10% 10% 0%5% 31% 0% 10% 2% 5%3% 0%10% 2% 0%3% 5% 10% 0% 5% David'sScenario 9 - High Island Density Multi-unit David'sScenario 45.10 9 - High Island Density100% Multi-unit 26% 45.10 10%100% 5%26% 14% 10% 8% 5%5% 14% 0% 8% 14% 5%3% 0%10% 14% 0%3% 5% 10% 0% 5% Land-use Program ScenariosLand-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion Roads/ Single- Roads/ Single- Community Community Net Infrastruc- FamilyNet Infrastruc- Multi-Unit Mixed-useFamily Retail/ Multi-UnitFacilities/ Mixed-use Retail/ Facilities/Industrial/ Industrial/ Total Developable ture OpenTotal SpaceDevelopableResidential Row tureHouses OpenResidential Space ResidentialResidential Row HousesServicesResidentialSchoolResidential Club/Marina ServicesResort/Hotel SchoolCommercial Club/Marina UtilitiesResort/Hotel Commercial Utilities acres acres acresacres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 1 45.1 - Open Parkland - - 45.1 45.1 - - - - 45.1 ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells Scenario 2 45.1 - PV Cells 40.6 4.5 45.1 - 40.6 - 4.5 ------40.6 - - 40.6 Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines Scenario 3 45.1 - Wind Turbines 40.6 4.5 45.1 - 40.6 - 4.5 ------40.6 - - 40.6 Scenario 4 - Green House Scenario 4 45.1 - Green House 40.6 4.5 45.1 - 40.6 - 4.5 ------36.1 - 4.5 - 36.1 4.5 Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 5 45.1 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 29.8 10.8 45.1 4.5 29.8 4.5 10.8 5.0 4.5 1.8 4.5 - 5.0 - 1.8 0.9 - 1.4 - 7.2 0.9 6.8 1.4 2.3 7.2 6.8 2.3 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached Scenario 6 45.1 - Low Density 34.3 Detached 8.1 45.1 2.7 34.3 30.7 8.1 - 2.7 - 30.7 ------1.4 - - - - 1.4 2.3 - - 2.3 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density Scenario 7 45.1 - Low & Medium 30.7 Density 9.9 45.1 4.5 30.7 18.5 9.9 4.5 4.5 2.3 18.5 - 4.5 0.9 2.3 0.9 - 1.4 0.9 - 0.9 - 1.4 2.3 - - 2.3 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows Scenario 8 45.1 - High Density 29.8 Rows 10.8 45.1 4.5 29.8 - 10.8 14.0 4.5 4.5 - 2.3 14.0 - 4.5 0.9 2.3 1.4 - 4.5 0.9 - 1.4 2.3 4.5 - 2.3 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit Scenario 9 45.1 - High Density 28.9 Multi-unit 11.7 45.1 4.5 28.9 2.3 11.7 6.3 4.5 3.6 2.3 2.3 6.3 - 3.6 6.3 2.3 1.4 - 4.5 6.3 - 1.4 2.3 4.5 - 2.3
ARUP
82 83 David's Island David's Island Land-use Program ScenariosLand-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion far FAR FAR
Mixed-Use Single- Mixed-Use Single- Community Community Residential Family ResidentialMulti-Unit Mixed-useFamily Retail/ Multi-UnitFacilities/ Mixed-use Retail/ Facilities/Industrial/ Industrial/ Net FAR Gross FAR Net FARRetail GrossResidential FAR Row Houses ResidentialRetail ResidentialResidential Row HousesServicesResidentialSchoolResidential Club/Marina ServicesResort/Hotel SchoolCommercial Club/Marina UtilitiesResort/Hotel Commercial Utilities FAR FAR FARFAR FAR FAR FARFAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FARFAR FARFAR FAR FARFAR FAR FAR FAR FAR
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 1 - - Open Parkland ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells Scenario 0.02 2 - PV Cells 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 ------0.02 - - 0.02 Scenario 3 - Wind arupTurbines information Scenario 0.02 3 - Wind Turbines 0.02 0.02 - 0.02 ------0.02 - - 0.02 Scenario 4 - Green House Scenario 0.274 - Green House 0.24 0.27 - 0.24 ------0.30 - 0.02 - 0.30 0.02 Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 0.69 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 0.46 0.69 - 0.46 0.50 0.75 - 1.00 0.50 - 0.75 - 1.00 1.00 - 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.25 1.00 0.50 0.25 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached Scenario 0.286 - Low Density 0.22 Detached 0.28 - 0.22 0.29 - - 0.29 - - - - - 0.20 - - - - 0.20 0.25 - - 0.25 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density Scenario 71.03 - Low & Medium 0.70 Density 1.03 - 0.70 1.00 1.10 - 2.00 1.00 - 1.10 0.50 2.00 1.50 - 1.00 0.50 - 1.50 - 1.00 0.25 - - 0.25 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows Scenario 1.968 - High Density 1.30 Rows 1.96 0.55 1.30 1.00 1.25 0.55 4.00 1.00 4.50 1.25 - 4.00 2.00 4.50 1.00 - 2.00 2.00 - 1.00 0.25 2.00 - 0.25 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit Scenario 93.17 - High Density 2.03 Multi-unit 3.17 1.00 2.03 1.00 1.75 1.00 8.00 1.00 10.00 1.75 - 8.00 2.50 10.00 1.00 - 2.00 2.50 - 1.00 0.25 2.00 - 0.25
programDavid's Island David's Island Land-use Program ScenariosLand-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion Program Program
Total Mixed-use Single- Total Mixed-use Single- Community Community Total Non- Residential TotalFamily Non- ResidentialMulti-Unit Mixed-useFamily Retail/Multi-UnitFacilities/ Mixed-use Retail/Resort/Facilities/Industrial/ Resort/ Industrial/ Total Residential Residential TotalRetailResidentialResidentialResidential Row Houses ResidentialRetail ResidentialResidential Row HousesServicesResidentialSchoolResidential Club/Marina Services Hotel SchoolCommercial Club/Marina Utilities Hotel Commercial Utilities arup information sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ftsq ft sq ftsq ft sq ftsq ft sq ftsq ft sq ftsq ft sq ftsq ft sq ftsq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario 1 - -Open Parkland ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells Scenario 35,362 2 - PV Cells - 35,362 35,362 - - - 35,362 ------35,362 - - 35,362 Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines Scenario 35,362 3 - Wind Turbines - 35,362 35,362 - - - 35,362 ------35,362 - - 35,362 Scenario 4 - Green House Scenario 475,423 4 - Green House - 475,423 475,423 - - - 475,423 ------471,493 - 3,929 - 471,493 3,929 Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference Scenario 893,873 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 338,886 554,987 893,873 - 338,886 98,228 554,987 162,076 78,582 - 98,228 - 162,076 - 78,582 39,291 29,468- - 314,329 39,291 147,342 29,468 24,557 314,329 147,342 24,557 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached Scenario 423,755 6 - Low Density 387,410 Detached 36,344 423,755 - 387,410 387,410 36,344 - - - 387,410 ------11,787 - - - - 11,787 24,557 - - 24,557 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density Scenario 1,380,101 7 - Low & Medium 1,218,025 Density 162,076 1,380,101 - 1,218,025 805,468 162,076 216,101 196,456 - 805,468 - 216,101 19,646 196,456 58,937 -58,937 19,646 - 58,937 - 58,937 24,557 - - 24,557 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows Scenario 2,544,100 8 - High Density 1,935,088 Rows 609,012 2,544,100 54,025 1,935,088 - 609,012 761,265 54,025 785,822 388,000 - 761,265 - 785,822 78,582 388,000 58,937 - 392,911 78,582 - 58,937 24,557 392,911 - 24,557 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit Scenario 3,983,137 9 - High Density 2,720,910 Multi-unit 1,262,227 3,983,137 98,228 2,720,910 98,228 1,262,227 481,316 98,228 1,257,316 98,228 884,050 481,316 - 1,257,316 687,595 884,050 58,937 - 392,911 687,595 - 58,937 24,557 392,911 - 24,557 ARUP 84 85 David's Island David's Island Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios statisticsDRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion Statistics Statistics
Single Single Peak Peak Housing Family Hsg Multi-Unit HousingHousing Residential Family Population Hsg Multi-Unit School AgeHousing Employees Residential - Employees Population - Jobs/School Age Employees - TouristEmployeesRetail - Space/ Jobs/ Tourist Retail Space/ Net FAR Units Units Units Net FARDensity PopulationUnits UnitsDensity (2) ChildrenUnits (2) DensityOutgoing Population(2) IncomingDensity Residents(2) Children Hotel (2) Outgoing Rooms Population(2) Incoming personResidents Hotel Rooms Population person FAR units units units FAR DU/DUA units persons unitspop/dev ac units persons DU/DUA persons persons persons pop/dev ac % persons rooms persons guests persons sq ft % rooms guests sq ft
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland -Scenario 1 - Open - Parkland ------0% ------0% - - - Scenario 2 - PV Cells 0.02 Scenario 2 - PV - Cells - - 0.02 ------33 - 0% - - - - 33 - 0% - - - Scenario 3 - Wind Turbinesarup information 0.02 Scenario 3 - Wind - Turbines - - 0.02 ------33 - 0% - - - - 33 - 0% - - - Scenario 4 - Green House 0.27 Scenario 4 - Green - House - - 0.27 ------240 - 0% - - - - 240 - 0% - - - Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 0.69 Scenario 5 - R&D238 & Hotel/Conference 164 74 0.69 21.1 238 485 164 16.3 74 39 21.1 336 485 554 16.3 165% 39 299 336 718 554 - 165% 299 718 - Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 0.28 Scenario 6 - Low 64 Density Detached 64 - 0.28 2.1 64 235 64 6.9 - 67 2.1 133 235 54 6.9 41% 67 - 133 - 54 - 41% - - - Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 1.03 Scenario 7 - Low575 & Medium 418 Density 157 1.03 22.8 575 1,032 418 33.7 157 149 22.8 685 1,032 248 33.7 36% 149 - 685 - 248 19.0 36% - - 19.0 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 1.96 Scenario 8 -1,415 High Density Rows 435 980 1.96 68.2 1,415 2,812 435 94.5 980 307 68.2 1,992 2,812 831 94.5 42% 307 491 1,992 1,178 831 19.2 42% 491 1,178 19.2 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 3.17 Scenario 9 -2,511 High Density Multi-unit 384 2,127 3.17 174.0 2,511 4,579 384 158.6 2,127 357 174.0 3,610 4,579 1,622 158.6 45% 357 491 3,610 1,178 1,622 21.5 45% 491 1,178 21.5
(1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Acquifer Protection District,(1) The Pootatuck/Newtown Connecticut, serves 1,153 Acquifer households. Protection District, Connecticut, serves 1,153 households. (2) NYS RDM values for suburban, high income by housing(2) NYS RDM typology values (bedrooms/unit for suburban, highsize, andincome bdg by type). housing typology (bedrooms/unit size, and bdg type). (3) Per NYSSED guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for (3)every Per 100 NYSSED students) guidelines (3 acres + 1 add'l acre for every 100 students)
ARUP
86 87 David's Island David's Island employmentLand-use Program Scenarios space/employeeLand-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion Employment Space/Employee Employment Space/Employee
Community Community Retail/ Facilities/ Club/ Resort/ Industrial/Retail/ Facilities/ MunicipalClub/ Resort/Resort/ Industrial/Resort/ Resort/ Municipal Resort/ Resort/ Resort/ Services School Marina Hotel CommercialServices School Utility MarinaServices HotelHotel CommercialHotel UtilityHotel Services Hotel Hotel Hotel
sq ft/emp sq ft/emp sq ft/emp emp/rmsq sq ft/emp ft/emp sq sq ft/emp ft/emp sq % resi.ft/emp pop. emp/rm sq ft/rm avg sq ft/empoccup.% sq guests/rm ft/emp % resi. pop. sq ft/rm avg occup.% guests/rm
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland 750 Scenario 1,000 1 - Open Parkland 900 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 2 - PV Cells 750 Scenario 1,000 2 - PV Cells 900 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines 750 Scenario 1,000 3 - Wind Turbines 900 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 4 - Green House 750 Scenario 1,000 4 - Green House 900 0.80 2,000750 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 2,00080% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 750 Scenario 1,000 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 900 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 1,050 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 1,050 80% 2.40 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 750 Scenario 1,000 6 - Low Density 900 Detached 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 750 Scenario 1,000 7 - Low & Medium 900 Density 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 750 Scenario 1,000 8 - High Density 900 Rows 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 750 Scenario 1,000 9 - High Density 900 Multi-unit 0.80 750 800 1,000 1,100 900 7% 0.80 800 800 80% 1,100 2.40 7% 800 80% 2.40
David's Island employmentLand-use Program Scenarios statistics DRAFT - For Discussion EmploymentEmployment Statistics Space/Employee Employment Statistics
CommunityCommunity Community Retail/Retail/ Facilities/Facilities/ Club/Club/ Resort/Resort/ Industrial/ Retail/ Facilities/MunicipalMunicipal Club/Resort/Total Resort/Resort/Resort/ Resort/Resort/ Municipal Total Resort/ Resort/ ServicesServices SchoolSchool MarinaMarina HotelHotelCommercial IndustrialServices Utility Utility SchoolServicesServices MarinaWorkersHotel HotelHotelHotel IndustrialHotelHotel Utility Services Workers Hotel Hotel
workerssq ft/emp sq workers ft/emp sq workers ft/emp workers emp/rm sq workers ft/empworkers sq workersft/emp workers % resi. workers pop. workers sq workers ft/rm avg workers occup.% rooms workers guests/rm peak pop. workers workers workers rooms peak pop.
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland - 750 1,000 - 900 - 0.80 - 800 - - 1,100 - - 7% - - 800 - - 80% - - 2.40 ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells - 750 1,000 - 900 - 0.80 - 800 - - 1,100 33 - 7% - - 800 33 - 80% - - 2.40 - 33 - 33 - - Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines - 750 1,000 - 900 - 0.80 - 800 - - 1,100 33 - 7% - - 800 33 - 80% - - 2.40 - 33 - 33 - - Scenario 4 - Green House - 750 1,000 - 900 - 0.80 - 2,000 236 - 1,100 4 - 7% - - 800 240 - 80% - 236 2.40 - 4 - 240 - - Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference - 750 1,000 40 900 33 0.80 239 800 185 - 1,100 23 40 7% 34 33 1,050 554 239 80% 299 185 2.40 718 23 34 554 299 718 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached - 750 1,000 - 900 14 0.80 - 800 - - 1,100 23 - 7% 17 14 800 54 - 80% - - 2.40 - 23 17 54 - - Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 27750 1,000 59 900 66 0.80 - 800 - 27 1,100 23 59 7% 73 66 800 248 - 80% - - 2.40 - 23 73 248 - - Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 750 73 1,000 79 900 66 0.80 393 800 - 73 1,100 23 79 7% 197 66 800 831 393 80% 491 - 2.40 1,178 23 197 831 491 1,178 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 131750 1,000 688 900 66 0.80 393 800 - 131 1,100 23 688 7% 321 66 800 1,622 393 80% 491 - 2.40 1,178 23 321 1,622 491 1,178 ARUP
88 89 David's Island unitsLand-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion
Units Residential Population School Age Children Workers in Residence Single- Single- Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Single-Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Single-Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Total Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Total Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Total Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Total units units units units units persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons persons
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells ------Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines ------Scenario 4 - Green House ------Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 53 111 74 - 238 122 232 131 - 485 13 16 10 - 39 79 150 107 - 336 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 64 - - - 64 235 - - - 235 67 - - - 67 133 - - - 133 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 328 90 157 - 575 777 255 - - 1,032 92 58 - - 149 512 174 - - 685 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows - 435 628 352 1,415 - 970 1,181 662 2,812 - 170 88 49 307 - 639 867 486 1,992 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 53 331 1,197 930 2,511 122 692 2,119 1,646 4,579 13 46 168 130 357 79 447 1,736 1,349 3,610
David's Island unitsLand-use Program - sizes Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion Single- Single- Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Single-Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Single-Family Multi-Unit Mixed-use Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Residential Row Houses Residential Residential Residential Row Houses Residential Residential units units units units pop/unit pop/unit pop/unit pop/unit pupil/unit pupil/unit pupil/unit pupil/unit emp/unit emp/unit emp/unit emp/unit
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells ------Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines ------Scenario 4 - Green House ------Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 1,850 1,450 1,050 950 2.31 2.09 1.77 1.77 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.49 1.35 1.45 1.45 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 6,000 - - - 3.67 - - - 1.05 - - - 2.08 - Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 2,450 2,400 1,250 - 2.37 2.83 - - 0.28 0.64 - - 1.56 1.93 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows - 1,750 1,250 1,100 - 2.23 1.88 1.88 - 0.39 0.14 0.14 - 1.47 1.38 1.38 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 1,850 1,450 1,050 950 2.31 2.09 1.77 1.77 0.25 0.14 0.14 0.14 1.49 1.35 1.45 1.45
ARUP
90 91 David's Island David's Island Land-use Program Scenarios Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion DRAFT - For Discussion infrastructureInfrastruct Infrastruct
Roof Area Roof Area Roof Area Roof Area for PVs for forRoof PVs Area for Roof Area (overlapping Greenroofs Dual(overlapping for Dual Greenroofs Dual for Dual PV Coverage w/ Greenroof (overlappingPV CoverageGreenroof & Roofw/ Area &Greenroof (overlapping Greenroof80m & Wind Roof Area & 80m Wind Roof Area % greenroofs) Coverage %Roof Areaw/ PVs) PV Roof% Areagreenroofs)GreenroofsCoverage PV Farm % Area Totalw/ PVs) PV AreaPV Roof AreaTurbinesGreenroofs PV Farm Area Total PV Area Turbines sq ft % sq ft %sq ft sq ft %% sq ft sq ft% acres sq ft sq ft% units sq ft acres sq ft units
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland Scenario - 1 - 50%Open Parkland - 0% - - 50% 0% - - 0% - - - 0% - - - - - Scenario 2 - PV Cells 8,118 Scenario 2 -50% PV Cells 4,059 0% 8,118 - 50% 0% 4,059 - 0% 40.6 888,109 - 0% - - 40.6 888,109 - Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines 8,118 Scenario 3 -50% Wind Turbines 4,059 0% 8,118 - 50% 0% 4,059 - 0% 2.7 62,865 - 0% 10 - 2.7 62,865 10 Scenario 4 - Green House 108,240 Scenario 4 -60% Green House 64,944 0% 108,240 - 60% 0% 64,944 38,966 0% 2.7 182,556 - 0% - 38,966 2.7 182,556 - Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 100,799 Scenario 5 -80% R&D & Hotel/Conference 80,639 60% 100,799 60,479 80% 40% 80,639 100,799 60% 2.7 60,479 198,251 40% - 100,799 2.7 198,251 - Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 69,680 Scenario 6 - 75%Low Density 52,260 Detached 60% 69,680 41,808 75% 50% 52,260 64,279 60% 2.7 41,808 169,872 50% - 64,279 2.7 169,872 - Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 146,801 Scenario 7 -60% Low & Medium 88,080 Density 55% 146,801 80,740 60% 45% 88,080 97,255 55% 2.7 80,740 205,692 45% - 97,255 2.7 205,692 - Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 141,840 Scenario 8 -60% High Density 85,104 Rows 65% 141,840 92,196 60% 50% 85,104 110,989 65% 2.7 92,196 202,716 50% - 110,989 2.7 202,716 - Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 134,398 Scenario 9 -60% High Density 80,639 Multi-unit 65% 134,398 87,359 60% 50% 80,639 105,166 65% 2.7 87,359 198,251 50% - 105,166 2.7 198,251 -
David's Island Land-use Program Scenarios DRAFT - For Discussion Coverage Coverage parcel coverageEmployment Space/Employee Community Community Community Retail/ Facilities/ Club/ Resort/ Industrial/ Municipal Resort/ Resort/ Resort/ Single-Family Standalone Facilities/Single-Family Industrial/Standalone Facilities/ Industrial/ Services School Marina Hotel Commercial Utility Services Hotel Hotel Hotel Residential Row Houses Multi-Unit Retail SchoolResidential Club/Marina Row HousesResort/Hotel Multi-UnitCommercialRetail UtilitiesSchool Club/Marina Resort/Hotel Commercial Utilities
sq ft/emp%%%% sq ft/emp sq ft/emp emp/rm sq ft/emp % sq%%%% ft/emp %%%% % resi. pop. sq ft/rm avg occup.% guests/rm % %%%%
Scenario 1 - Open Parkland 750 1,000 900 0.80 800 1,100 7% 800 80%2% 2.40 2% Scenario 2 - PV Cells 750 1,000 900 0.80 800 1,100 7% 800 80%2% 2.40 2% Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines 750 1,000 900 0.80 800 1,100 7% 800 80%2% 2.40 2% Scenario 4 - Green House 750 0% 1,000 0% 900 0% 0.80 0% 2,0000% 0% 1,100 0% 0%7% 0% 0% 800 30% 0% 80% 0% 0% 2.40 0% 0% 30% 0% Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 750 40% 1,000 55% 900 40% 0.80 800 50% 40% 1,100 50% 55%7% 20% 40% 1,050 25%80% 25% 50% 2.40 50% 20% 25% 25% Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 750 20% 1,000 900 0.80 800 20% 1,100 20% 7% 800 - 80%25% 2.40 20% - 25% Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 750 50% 1,000 55% 900 40% 0.80 50% 800 40% 50% 1,100 50% 55%7% 40% 800 - 50% 80%25% 40% 2.40 50% - 25% Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 750 50% 1,000 55% 900 45% 0.80 800 45% 50% 1,100 50% 55%7% 40% 45% 800 - 80%25% 45% 2.40 50% 40% - 25% Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 750 50% 1,000 55% 900 45% 0.80 800 50% 50% 1,100 50% 55%7% 40% 45% 800 - 80%25% 50% 2.40 50% 40% - 25%
ARUP
92 93 electricity demand with efficiency electricity demand improvements
Electricity Demand - mWh/yr Electricity Demand - mWh/yr, after efficiency improvements
Residential Commercial/ Residential Commercial/ Multi Residential Industrial Institutional Hotel Total Residential Multi Residential Industrial Institutional Hotel Total Residential
mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr mWh/yr Scenario 1 - Open Parkland ------Scenario 1 - Open Parkland ------Scenario 2 - PV Cells - - - - 152 - 152 Scenario 2 - PV Cells - - - - 191 - 191 Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines - - - - 152 - 152 Scenario 3 - Wind Turbines - - - - 191 - 191 Scenario 4 - Green House - - - 594 17 - 611 Scenario 4 - Green House - - - 849 21 - 870 Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 1,372 344 1,716 2,109 504 4,558 10,602 Scenario 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 960 241 1,201 1,621 401 3,615 8,039 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 1,339 - 1,339 - 196 - 2,874 Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 870 - 870 - 156 - 1,896 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 3,497 729 4,226 281 769 - 9,503 Scenario 7 - Low & Medium Density 2,448 510 2,958 216 612 - 6,745 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 2,275 3,186 5,460 594 697 4,518 16,730 Scenario 8 - High Density Rows 3,033 4,551 7,584 773 875 5,697 22,514
Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 2,677 9,878 12,555 1,406 4,164 5,697 36,377 Scenario 9 - High Density Multi-unit 2,008 6,914 8,922 1,081 3,316 4,518 26,759
pvs pvs with efficiency improvements
PV PV PV, after efficiencyPV, after improvements efficiency improvements
Energy/ PV Energy/ PV % Elect from % (Deficit)/Elect from (Deficit)/ Energy/ PV Energy/ PV % Elect from % Elect(Deficit)/ from (Deficit)/ Area Elec fromArea PV Elec fromPV PV SurplusPV Surplus Total PV Area Total PVArea Area Elec fromArea PV Elec fromPV PV SurplusPV Surplus Total PV Area Total PV Area
sq ft kWh/sq ft/yrsq ft kWh/sq mWh/yr ft/yr mWh/yr% mWh/yr% mWh/yr sq ft kWh/sq ft/yrsq ft kWh/sq mWh/yr ft/yr mWh/yr% mWh/yr% mWh/yr Scenario 1 - OpenScenario Parkland 1 - Open Parkland - 10.9 - - 10.9 0% - - 0% - Scenario 1 - OpenScenario Parkland 1 - Open Parkland - 10.9 - - 10.9 0% - - 0% - Scenario 2 - PV CellsScenario 2 - PV Cells 888,109 888,109 10.9 9,658 10.9 6352% 9,658 9,5066352% 9,506 Scenario 2 - PV CellsScenario 2 - PV Cells 888,109 888,109 10.9 9,658 10.9 5058% 9,658 9,4675058% 9,467 Scenario 3 - WindScenario Turbines 3 - Wind Turbines 62,865 62,865 10.9 684 10.9 450% 684 532450% 532 Scenario 3 - WindScenario Turbines 3 - Wind Turbines 62,865 62,865 10.9 684 10.9 358% 684 493358% 493 Scenario 4 - GreenScenario House 4 - Green House 182,556 182,556 10.9 1,985 10.9 325% 1,985 1,374325% 1,374 Scenario 4 - GreenScenario House 4 - Green House 182,556 182,556 10.9 1,985 10.9 228% 1,985 1,115228% 1,115 Scenario 5 - R&DScenario & Hotel/Conference 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 198,251 198,251 10.9 2,156 10.9 20% 2,156 (8,446)20% (8,446) Scenario 5 - R&DScenario & Hotel/Conference 5 - R&D & Hotel/Conference 198,251 198,251 10.9 2,156 10.9 27%2,156 (5,883)27% (5,883) Scenario 6 - Low Density Detached 169,872 10.9 1,847 97% (49) Scenario 6 - LowScenario Density Detached6 - Low Density Detached 169,872 169,872 10.9 1,847 10.9 64% 1,847 (1,026)64% (1,026) Scenario 6 - LowScenario Density 6Detached - Low Density Detached 169,872 169,872 10.9 1,847 10.9 97%1,847 (49)97% (49) Scenario 7 - LowScenario & Medium 7 - DensityLow & Medium Density 205,692 205,692 10.9 2,237 10.9 2,23733% (4,508)33% (4,508) Scenario 7 - LowScenario & Medium 7 -Density Low & Medium Density 205,692 205,692 10.9 2,237 10.9 24% 2,237 (7,266)24% (7,266) Scenario 8 - HighScenario Density 8 Rows - High Density Rows 202,716 202,716 10.9 2,205 10.9 2,20513% (14,526)13% (14,526) Scenario 8 - HighScenario Density 8Rows - High Density Rows 202,716 202,716 10.9 2,205 10.9 2,20510% (20,309)10% (20,309)
Scenario 9 - HighScenario Density 9Multi-unit - High Density Multi-unit 198,251 198,251 10.9 2,156 10.9 2,156 6% (34,221)6% (34,221) Scenario 9 - HighScenario Density 9 Multi-unit - High Density Multi-unit 198,251 198,251 10.9 2,156 10.9 2,156 8% (24,603)8% (24,603) ARUP
94 95 PRE-PLANNINGPRE-PLANNING SCENARIO SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVEALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENTPREFERREDPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PREFERREDPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE REFINEMENT REFINEMENTPLAN PLANDEVELOPEMNT DEVELOPEMNT STAKEHOLDERSTAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION FACILITATEDFACILITATED STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER PUBLICPUBLIC OUTREACH OUTREACH PUBLICPUBLIC OUTREACH OUTREACH PUBLICPUBLIC OUTREACH OUTREACH INITIALINITIAL OUTREACH OUTREACH OUTREACHOUTREACH FACILITATEDFACILITATED STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH OUTREACH DEIS STAKEHOLDERDEIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS PROCESS EIS STAKEHOLDEREIS STAKEHOLDER PROCESS PROCESS PUBLICPUBLIC CHARETTES CHARETTES
PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY STUDY STUDY
VISION/GOALS/OBJECTIVESVISION/GOALS/OBJECTIVES
regulatoryregulatory review, review, discussions,discussions, address address contraintscontraints
site analysis,site analysis, economiceconomic study study
sustainabilitysustainability ALTERNATIVESALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION framework,framework, perfor -perfor- mancemance criteria criteria masterplanningmasterplanning study ofstudy alternatives of alternatives
funding,funding, facilities, facilities, PREFERREDPREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE SELECTION SELECTION benefit,benefit, fiscal studiesfiscal studies preferredpreferred other other alternativealternative studies, studies, developmentdevelopment
fiscal impact,fiscal impact, PRELIMINARYPRELIMINARY MASTER MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTPLAN DEVELOPMENT financingfinancing plan plan developmentdevelopment developerdeveloper selection selection process/process/ proposal proposal (1) (1) RFEI/RFPRFEI/RFP preparation preparation preparationpreparation FINAL PLANFINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT (2) (2) DEIS processDEIS process final planfinal develop plan develop- - PLANNING PROCESS ment andment presenta and presenta- - tion tion The Davids Island Study for the City of Rochelle begins a multi-stage planning process. Acceptance by the City of the study’s recommendations may be followed by a scenario development process, followed by scenario (3) (3) development, selection and development of a preferred alternative, developer selection, and the SEQR process. EIS processEIS process Stakeholder and public outreach will underpin this process at all stages.
(1) Developer request for expressions of interest, developer request for proposals (2) NYS draft environmental impact assessment ARUP (3) NYS environment impact assessment 96 97 MONTHLY DIURNAL AVERAGES - NEW ROCHELLE, NY, USA
°C W/ m² mm
40 1.0k 100
30 0.8k 90 Stereographic Diagram Location: New Rochelle, NY, USA Sun Position: -179.7°, 33.1° N 345° 15° 20 0.6k 60 HSA: -179.7°, VSA: 146.9° © W e athe r T ool 330° 30°
10 0.4k 40 10° 315° 45° 20° 0 0.2k 20 30° 1st Jul 300° 60° 1st Jun -10 0.0k 0 40° 1st Aug 1st May 50° Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 285° 60° 75° 1st Sep Legend 70°
Annual Precipitation 1st Apr 80° Comfort Zone Air Temperature Cold period heating required Direct Solar Radiation 270° 90° Hot period cooling required Diffuse Solar Radiation 1st Oct
1st Mar
Psychrometric Chart AH 255° 105° Location: New Rochelle, NY, USA 1st Nov Data Points: 1st January to 31st December 1st Feb Barometric Pressure: 101.36 kPa © W e athe r T ool 25 1st Jan 1st Dec 240° 120° 16 8 SELECTED DESIGN TECHNIQUES: 15 9 1. passive solar heating 14 13 12 11 10 2. exposed mass + night-purge ventilation 20 3. natural ventilation 4. indirect evaporative cooling 225° 135°
15 210° 150° Time: 12:00 Date: 21st September 195° 165° 180° 10 Dotted lines: July-December.
5
DBT(°C) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
new rochelle climate analysis solar access & grid orientation New Rochelle has a seasonal climate with hot muggy summers and cool winters. Average The Sun Path plan diagram above shows the annual and daily sun path for Davids Island. daily temperatures range from 32°F to 73°F with peaks of 87°F in July and lows of 28°F in The blue lines show the daily path of the sun while the blue figure eight lines indicate the January. There is a need for heating during the cool and cold periods. Heavily insulated sun’s location at a given hour throughout the year. The degrees around the outer circle walls, roofs, and glazing are necessary in winter to prevent heat loss. Consistent direct solar provide the azimuth of the sun while the concentric circles provide the altitude of the sun, radiation can provide passive heating in winter but requires shading of building facades and also known as sun angle. Site boundaries, solar access, and shading requirements impact the public space to mitigate excessive heat gain. Natural ventilation and night cooling through street grid and building massing. Maximize the potential for southern building exposure to operable windows and louvers helps minimize the cooling load. encourage passive heating and daylight and allow for natural ventilation.
98 99 Ottawa 50 0 M Nova Scotia i le New York s
Ohio Pennsylvania New Jersey
importing material local materials use materials with a high recycled Hydroponic farm Greenhouse Farm farmers market content, & are rapidly renewable
traditional food distribution
recycle local food distribution
composting
waste reduction local food system A closed loop waste management system is extremely important to an island development The distance food travels, know as “food miles,” contributes to a person’s or town’s carbon where importing and exporting goods, materials, and waste can be time consuming and footprint. Diverse local food production offers open space, fresh foods, and a closed costly, and the viability of island sourced building materials should be taken into account. loop agricultural system. Locally grown produce reduces the high energy use typical of Off site sources should be regional to avoid long shipping distances. Waste on site can be transporting food from agricultural regions to cities. Urban farms can act as a green space reduced by minimizing packing and supplies brought onto Davids Island and establishing a and garden amenity for residents and lower the cost of produce. waste sorting system. Organic waste could be composted on the island and used as topsoil while the non-organic waste can be reused, recycled, or exported to a landfill.
100 101 Smart Location and Linkage Encourages communities to consider location, transportation alternatives, and preservation of sensitive lands while also discouraging sprawl.
Neighborhood Pattern and Design green roofs courtyards Emphasizes vibrant, equitable communities that are healthy, walkable, and mixed-use.
Green Infrastructure and Buildings Promotes the design and construction of buildings and infrastructure that reduce energy and water use, while promoting more sustainable use of materials, reuse of existing and historic structures, and other sustainable best practices.
Innovation & Design Process Process recognizes exemplary and innovative performance reaching public parks curb cuts beyond the existing credits in the rating system, as well as the value of including an accredited professional on the design team.
Regional Priority Credits Encourages projects to focus on earning credits of significance to the project’s local environment.
reflective, shaded sidewalks permeable paving open spaces & rainwater management benchmarking performance Encourage open space to provide amenity, mitigate storm water runoff, reduce the urban Benchmarking systems for green design help demonstrate a project’s commitment to heat island effect, remove pollutants from the air, and allow for increased opportunities for environmental stewardship and social responsibility and garner attention within a broader views and ventilation. Examples include public parks that can act as storehouses of carbon marketplace. Davids Island could pursue a green building certification as a neighborhood dioxide, courtyards which increase biodiversity within the city, curb cuts and porous paving or for individual buildings. One system, LEED for Neighborhood Development, evaluates the that filter and slow storm water runoff, and green roofs which can absorb storm water and location of buildings, the way they relate to each other, and qualities of the public realm also improve roof insulation. that knit them together while LEED for Core and Shell Construction covers base building elements, such as the structure, envelope and building-level systems. 102 103 fort slocum, 1961
proposal, scheme 1
fort slocum, 1878-1967 feasibility study, 1967 Between 1878 and 1967, Fort Slocum, a post of the U.S. Army, served as a military recruiting In 1967, Getter-Green Associates conducted a feasibility study for the development of Davids station and coastal battery. In 1967, the City of New Rochelle purchased the island from the Island. The study concluded that for the city of New Rochelle to improve its tax base, high- Federal Government for $485,000 so that it could redevelop it. rise luxury residential, corporate headquarters, or Research and Development site (with an investor willing to fund the capital costs) should be constructed. The report also concluded that access to Davids Island is crucial, and proposed a causeway to connect Davids Island to the mainland.
104 105 indian point
proposal, scheme 2
city alive plan, 1967 con ed property, 1968-1976 Two different development schemes came out of the 1967 Feasibility Study - scheme one In 1968, Consolidated Edison purchased the Island for $3 million as a site for a nuclear primarily residential and scheme two primarily commercial. The first scheme proposed 3,500 power plant but withdrew the plan due to public objection and sold the island back to New luxury residential units in towers and a 70,000 sf convention center, a 200-key hotel, and a Rochelle for $1 in 1976. In 1977, following ten years of neglect, the city designated the island 70-key boatel. 20 acres are reserved for public parkland, 6 of which are reserved for educational as an urban renewal area. facilities. The second scheme proposed an R&D campus on 30 acres of the site, a combination of high-rise and townhouses on 20 acres of the site, and a convention center/hotel complex similar to the proposal in scheme one. Planning was also done for causeway development options. 106 107 hotel columbia plan harbor condominium plan
hotel columbia plan, 1977 harbor condominium plan, undated In March 1977, a design called Hotel Columbia, the Gem of the Ocean, was proposed for Davids Island. Michael Harris Spector & Partners, an architecture firm from New York, proposed a Harbor The plan included a hotel complex, convention center, recreational facilities, a shopping, casino, Condominium for Fort Slocum. The only existing documentation of the proposal is a and theatre. The four hotel towers, 300 hotel rooms each, are located toward the center of the site. drawing that shows a two to four story podium of condominiums facing the harbor, with The casino, theatre, and movie complex are planned on the southern portion of the island, and the a pool and outdoor lounge area located on the roof of the podium. Two 17-story buildings service center sited over the incinerator s. A park, children’s play area, and recreation center are of condominiums, which appear to be connected by breezeways, sit on the podium. A small located in the northern portion of the island. Based on the plan’s existing documentation, island marina and vehicular parking are also shown in the drawing. access would be water-borne, with one helipad to accommodate some air travel. 108 109 xanadu proposal trump proposal
xanadu, 1981-1992 trump, 1994-1996 In 1981, Xanadu Property Associates proposed to develop the island as an exclusive residential In 1994, Donald Trump pursued the opportunity to develop a luxury residential community community, which included construction of a 3,465ft. bridge, breakwater for an 800-slip marina, on the island. His plan called for three 22-story buildings and one 45-story tower, a 1,000- and 2,000 condominium units. Due to the grand scale and elitist tone of the plans, the proposed slip marina, a small retail complex, parking for 3,500, and a ferry service that would development met community resistance and was later withdrawn by Xanadu in 1990. Xanadu then provide transportation to the island. However, Trump also met community opposition and proposed a new development plan to address issues of the original proposal. However, continued withdrew his plan in 1996. opposition to the development by environmentalist and other community groups led New Rochelle to opt out of extending Xanadu the status of designated developer in 1992. 110 111 natural parkland rye playland, new york
westchester county, 1990-2010 davids island development co., 1994-1996 During the early 1990s, Westchester County proposed to convert the island into a waterfront park with Between 1994 and 1996, Davids Island Development Company, composed of a consortium biking, hiking, and recreational fields, while making the island accessible by ferry only. This proposal was of smaller developers, formed to create a family entertainment park with a water park, the only one that would not disturb the fragile ecosystem of the Long Island Sound, though the plan was amphitheater, health club and earth science center with a magnetic monorail to connect to not developed. In 2002, it was determined that Westchester County would purchase, restore, and protect the island. the island. Again, this plan did not move forward and the island is still owned by New Rochelle. However, in 2010, it was announced that plans to devise a conceptual plan and a Task Force were convened to shape and achieve a vision for the island as a destination for residents and the surrounding region. 112 113 history Army Corps of Engineers
davids island - ft. slocum, 1894 davids island - ft. slocum, 1917 davids island - ft. slocum plan davids island - de cemp general hospital plan
114 115 feasibility study, 1967
116 117 xanadu proposal, 1981-1992 trump proposal, 1994-1996
xanadu proposal - model
trump proposal - perspective
xanadu proposal - model
xanadu proposal - model trump proposal - plan 118 119 bibliography bibliography For Introduction, Site Analysis, Density Scenarios, and Appendix Sections For Introduction, Site Analysis, Density Scenarios, and Appendix Sections
Works Referenced Drawings Referenced
Boorstein, Robert O. “OFFSHORE PLANS RAISING AN ONSHORE STORM: Melvin, Tessa. “David’s Island Is Timely Lunch Topic [sic].” New York Times Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (SPDES), Discharge Permit. Pages New Rochelle Downtown Development Study. Figure 1-1. Courtesy of Special to the New York Times.” New York Times 4 May 1987. Online 28 January 1990. Online Archives. 1-6. NY: Effective Date 2007. New Rochelle Department of City Planning Archives. Melvin, Tessa. “New Rochelle Invites Comment on Latest Plan For Davids Shaffer, Gail S. “Letter to the Editor: New Rochelle Develop Plan Threatens Received from City of New Rochelle, 23 June 2011 Brenner, Elsa. “IN BRIEF; Davids Island.” New York Times 28 February 1999. Island” New York Times 1 March 1992. Online Archives. Long island Sound.” New York Times 30 Oct. 1990. Online Archives. 1. Merrit Survey – A001.dwg Online Archives. Melvin, Tessa. “Public’s Last Say on David’s Island Plan [sic].” New York Times Steinberg, Jacques. “New Rochelle Ponders a Trump Tower in the Sound; 2. Merrit Survey – FOR GIS.dwg Brown, Betsy. “WESTCHESTER JOURNAL; DAVIDS ISLAND.” New York Times 29 April 1990. Online Archives. Where Some See Park, the Developer Sees an Island on Condos, With a New 3. Merrit Survey _FOR_GIS.dwg 15 Feb. 1987. Online Archives. Name.’ New York Times 20 Oct. 1994. Online Archives. Melvin, Tessa. “Reveille for New Rochelle’s Abandoned Army Fort?” New 4. BASEMAP-A001.dwg Brenner, Elsa. “Trump Buys Davids I. For Almost $13 Million.” New York York Times 2 Oct. 1994. Online Archives. Steinberg, Jacques. “O’Rourke Proposes making Davids Island a Country Times 21 January 1996. Online Archives. Park.’ New York Times 23 June 1994. Online Archives. 5. BASEMAP-A002.dwg Melvin, Tessa. “State Takes Initiative on Davids I. [sic].” New York Times 9 Bronx River Sound Shore Audubon. The Importance of Preserving Davids December 1990. Online Archives. Tetra Tech EC, for US Army Corps of Engineers. Documentation of 6. GRID-MAP-2.dwg Island as Public Parkland. Contributing Elements, Fort Slocum Historic and Archeological District, Melvin, Tessa. “The Clock is Ticking on David’s Island Project [sic].” New York 7. Shape Files for Environmental GPS Points; Original Elevation Lines Cashin Associates, PC. Final Report: City of New Rochelle Harbor Davids Island, City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York. Volume Times 11 February 1990. Online Archives. Received from City of New Rochelle, 24 June 2011 Management Plan. New York:1998. 1: Historic Overview and Buildings 1-13, Rev. 1. Concord: Massachusetts, May “Opinion: New Life for Davids Island.” New York Times 27 June 1988. Online 2008. 1. New Rochelle GIS Information Environmental Restoration Project. Davids Island, Site #E360077 Archives. Tetra Tech EC, for US Army Corps of Engineers. Documentation of Received from City of New Rochelle Feron, James. “A Reluctant Rejection on Davids Island.” New York Times 15 New Rochelle Department of Development. New Rochelle City Council. Contributing Elements, Fort Slocum Historic and Archeological District, 1. Appendix D – Electronic Figure File of Excavation Areas March 1992. Online Archives. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, City of New Rochelle. New Davids Island, City of New Rochelle, Westchester County, New York, Volume Rochelle:1999. Pdf copy. Websites Referenced Feron, James. “Island Building Plan Dropped.” New York Times 17 July 1990. 6: Buildings 130-135 and Unnumbered Structures (Battery Practice, Flagpole, Online Archives. New Rochelle Department of Development. Davids Island Task Force. Parade Ground, Rodman Gun Monument, Seawall, System of Roads and Citizens Campaign for the Environment. http://citizenscampaign. Interim Report of the Davids Island Task Force. New Rochelle: February 2011. com/campaigns/davids-island.asp Feron, James. “New Rochelle Votes to End Exclusive Contract to Develop Paths). Rev. 1. Concord: Massachusetts, February 2010.
Island.” New York Times 11 March 1992. Online Archives. New Rochelle Department of Development. Comprehensive Plan Update. “Trump Wants to Build Big Tower on Island.” New York Times 28 Sept. 1994. City of New Rochelle, NY. http://www.newrochelleny.com/ 14 June 2011. http://noambramson.org/publicdocs/2011/06/Comp-Plan- Getter Green Associates. A Comprehensive Feasibility Study for the Online Archives. NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. http://www. Presentation.pdf Development of Davids Island (Fort Slocum), New Rochelle, New York.” “Westchester Buys Davids I. for $6.5 Million to Use as a Park.” New York dec.ny.gov/Westchester County, NY. http://www3.westchestergov. May 1967. New Rochelle. GreeNR: The New Rochelle Sustainability Plan 2010-2030 Times 25 Oct. 2001. Online Archives. com/ (Draft document). Klien, Melissa. “Donald’s island: Ocean ambience, 1000 apartments.” Westchester Global Warming Task Force. Westchester Action Plan for Westchester County, NY - Virtual Archives. http://davidsisland. Gannett Suburban Newspapers 17 April, 1995: 3A. Pdf copy. New Rochelle Zoning Code. Articles IV, IX. Accessed online http://www. Climate Change and Sustainable Development. 2008. westchesterarchives.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=a ecode360.com/ecode3-back/getSimple.jsp?custId=NE0964&guid=6729498 rticle&id=46&Itemid=98 Lawyer, William. “Create a ‘Land Bank’ To Save Davids Island [Letter to the Editor].” New York Times 20 April 2003. Online Archives. New York State. Department of Environmental Conservation. State US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/
120 121 bibliography bibliography For Introduction, Site Analysis, Density Scenarios, and Appendix Sections For Introduction, Site Analysis, Density Scenarios, and Appendix Sections
Photographs Referenced Page 112 Hotel and Research Center Bridge
Xanadu Bridge Proposal. Figg Engineering Group, Davids Island Bridge. New (Davids Island 2008) - http://davidsisland.westchesterarchives.com/ Image 1: http://www.hawaii.edu/himb/facilities.html Image 1 (Fire Island): http://www.panoramio.com/photo/31354886 Rochelle, NY index.php?option=com_rsgallery2&page=inline&id=85&Itemid=61 Image 2 (Woods Hole): http://synergyconsultants.net/woods_hole_ Image 2 (Florida): Wikimedia Commons; Author –Gamweb Proposed Harbor Condominium for Fort Slocum. Michael Harris Spector & Page 113 oceanographic_institution_quissett_campus_commissioning.html Image 3 (Mud Island): Wikimedia Commons; Author –Thomas R. Partners. NY (Rye Playland) – Flickr; Author - WalkingGeek Image 3 (Scripps): Wikimedia Commons; Author – Dan725 Machnitzki Model Shots. Courtesy of New Rochelle Department of City Planning Scale Comparisons LD 1/2 Acre Image 4 (Xanadu): Drawings for Hotel Columbia Scheme. Courtesy of New Rochelle Governors Island: Flickr; Author – AJP79 Image 1: Flickr; Author - Phillip Long Image 5 (Padre): Flickr; Author – SpartanGirl1998 Department of City Planning Fire Island: http://www.loving-long-island.com/davis-park.html Image 2: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Bms4880 Image 6 (Rickenbacker Causeway) - Wikimedia Commons; Author – Marc Bike Path Proposal for New Rochelle. Courtesy of Rochelle Department of Averette Davenport Neck: Flickr; Author – K. Friend Image 3: Flickr; Author - Jose Manuel Alonso City Planning Downtown New Rochelle: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Yonkinator LD & MD Google Earth Oak Bluffs: Flickr; Author – Doug Kerr (dougtone) Image 1: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Phillip Capper Page 4 Glen Island: Flickr; Author – K. Friend Image 2: Flickr; Author – Ian Freimuth Google Earth City Island: Flickr; Author – jodimarr Image 3: apartmentwiz.com/Houston Page 13 Santa Catalina: Flickr; Author – mjmst96 Row Houses Davids Island 2005. http://davidsisland.westchesterarchives.com/index. php?option=com_rsgallery2&page=inline&id=276&Itemid=61 Open Parkland Image 1: www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/play/peng-chau-hong-kongs-most- underrated-island-escape-510599?page=0,1 Page 18 Glenn Island: Flickr; Author – Walking Green Image 2: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Laurens Indicative image of Con Ed Development (Indian Point): Wikimedia Moors Nature Reserve: Wikimedia Commons; Author – GeographBot Commons; Author – Daniel Case Image 3: Flickr; Author – mr_smee44; Greg Shelby Farms: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Thomas R. Machnitzki Page 19 Multi-Unit PV Cells Fort Slocum (Davids Island), New Rochelle 1961; Flickr; Author – K. Friend Image 1: http://architecture-now2.blogspot.com/2010/04/bear-lane- PV Cells Image 1: Flickr; Author – Lance Cheung london-united -kingdom.html Page 104 PV Cells Image 2: Flickr: Author - windsordi Image 2: Flickr; Author – Concert Properties Ltd Fort Slocum (Davids Island), New Rochelle 1961; Flickr; Author – K. Friend PV Cells Image 3: Wikimedia Commons; Author - ZSM Image 3: Wikimedia Commons; Author – Jim Henderson Page 107 Wind Turbines Indicative image of Con Ed Development (Indian Point): Wikimedia Wind Turbine 1: Wikimedia Commons; Author - Fish Cop Commons; Author – Daniel Case Wind Turbine 2: Wikimedia Commons; Author - Littlejohn
Wind Turbine 3: Flickr; Author – www.FranceHouseHunt.com
122 123 bibliography davids island For Sustainability Section and Greenhouse Scenario Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC
Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates (KPF) is one of the world’s pre-eminent architecture firms, providing architecture, interior, programming and master planning services for clients in both the public and private sectors. Images Referenced Importing Material. http://blogs.edf.org/transportation/2010/05/07/ Operating as one firm with six global offices, KPF is led by 20 Principals and 14 Directors. The firm’s 500+ staff coastal-shipping-a-potential-solution-to-the-challenges-of-a-growing- Page 57 members come from 43 different countries, speak more than 30 languages, and include over 70 LEED accredited freight-sector/ Chatham. http://boulderganic.com/summer2011/hydro/ professionals. KPF’s diverse portfolio, which features over 70 projects certified or pursuing green building Recycled Content Material. http://www.greenspacencr.org/building/pros/ Marlborough. http://www.theinnovationdiaries.com/1037/hydroponic- certification, comprises corporate, hospitality, residential, academic, civic, transportation, and mixed-use how_b/elements_b/materials.html strawberries/ projects located in more than 35 countries. Recying. http://facops.wsu.edu/Recycling/rec_recycling.htm Composting. Hartford. http://www.freshlinkfarms.com/ http://slowbuddha.org/composting-what-why-and-how/ Page 36 New Rochelle: Mayor Noam Bramson; Council Member Albert Tarantino; Charles B. Strome, III, City Manager; Page 101 Michael W. Freimuth, Commissioner of Development; Eleanor Sharpe, Director of Planning; Suzanne Reider, Icon Images: “The New Rochelle Sustainability Plan 2010 - 2030” from Hydroponic Farm. http://www.yanceyvillage.com/farm_to_fork/ New Rochelle. Senior Project Manager hannahs_hydroponics.html Page 102 Greenhouse Farm. Freshfield Farms. Penfield, NY Curb Cuts. http://denomydesigns.com/conservation.html Davids Island Task Force: Doug Hocking, Thomas Lang, Kathy Jensen-Graham, Terence Gargan, Bonnie O’Brien, Farmers Market. http://www.weboflifefarm.com/from-the-farm/farmers- Rob Balachandran, Cesare Manfredi, Steve Levy, Christine Sculti, William Janeway, Richard Organisciak, Sara Page 38 markets.html Richmond, Ellie Fredston, David Blumenfeld, Gary Trachten, Gregory Merchant, Mayor Noam Bramson, Council Traffic. http://www.senukexrumer.com/tag/traffic/ Page 103 Member Albert Tarantino, Michael Yellin Electric Car. http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9996353-54.html Icons: USGBC
Bus . http://fleximonkey.com/gallerier/busser/dukketeater-bus/ Works Referenced NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Ferrry Boat. http://www.tourroundchina.com/Shanghai-Ferry-Boat.html “LEEDv3”. US Green Building Council. Retrieved September 2011.
Bicycles. “Boston’s Bike Sharing Myth, And China” Sam Kornstein January H. Dittmar and G. Ohland, eds., “The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Kohn Pedersen Fox Project Team: 26, 2011. Transit-Oriented Development (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2004), p. 120 Design Principal: Doug Hocking Walking. http://www.atlantaspineandsport.com/services/custom- EPA 542-F-01-001 . “A Citizen’s Guide to Bioremediation.” April 2001 Project Team: Jennifer Pehr, Stephen Lenz, Jessica Talley orthotics/ Paul Kamen . “A New Proposal for a Berkeley Ferry.” August 2001 Sustainability Consultants: Tiffany Broyles, Gera Feigon Page 39
Base map. Google Earth
Page 40 Associated Firms: ARUP, SBI
Pedestrian Priortity. http://makevictoriabetter.blogspot.com/p/reads. html Copyright: Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC Mixed-Use Districts. Rue Sainte-Catherine by Christian Bauer. Published by Kohn Pedersen Fox Associates PC, 11 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036 Vegetation. http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/02/17/david-brooks-still- rooting-for-auto-dependence-and-sprawl/ Printed in USA 2011 Page 100 124 125 Davids Island New Rochelle, NY
126