From the October 5, 2009 Westchester Tribune
The discussion by the New Rochelle City Council on whether to accept the North Avenue study ended when Katherine Gill, Legal Counsel, stated that the request by Councilman Richard St. Paul for removal of the section from Sickles Avenue to the New Rochelle train station, necessitated changes in the report. Mayor Noam Bramson had introduced the study by saying there were three areas that needed to be addressed. First, the potential for set-backs between businesses and residences because nothing in the present law required them. Second how was the greater density of 3.0 (FAR) arrived at, and would a lower density have a stimulus effect? Third, what is the status of the possible rezoning of areas off North Avenue?
Graham Trelstad representing AKRF chose to address the second question first. He said present conditions were looked at and how people felt about the present height of buildings. The building coverage is 80-90% of the lots, but he admitted New Rochelle is largely a suburban city. He felt a FAR of 3.0 would be the most likely way to redevelop the area. An analysis of set-backs could be completed. He felt the Fifth Avenue rezoning would allow development especially since the area is presently not entirely residential.
Councilman James Stowe was the first one to respond by saying he wanted to “go right to the point.” Fifth Avenue is clearly residential and he felt it was unwise to legalize several illegal uses there. He added, nothing that Trelstad said had “altered his opinion.” Councilman Albert Tarantino asked about parking and it was determined that with a FAR of 3.0, provision for parking “never happens.” Trelstad found that developers want a 20% return on their investment but with the present economic conditions they may accept 15% as a return.
FAR or Floor Area Ratio had been discussed previously by Council. FAR is the total square feet of a building divided by the area of the plot. To achieve 3.0 at least three floors must be built, one or two stories would use more land than is available. Four floors would use 75% of the plot.
Using the example of McDonalds, which was allowed an 0.5 FAR, Trelstad said that was not the character of development you want to create. Tarantino continued by stating the condition of the buildings on North Avenue may not be optimum for constructing more floors above them. If demolition and construction were required, the costs would increase.
Both Councilmen Stowe and Tarantino expressed concerns about allowing developers to use municipal lots to fulfill parking requirements. This has become a pattern that will create a void of available parking for residents and businesses. When Mayor Bramson commented that to move forward with the proposal “most if not all” of the City Council wanted amendments. Only Council members Fertel and Sussman voted to hold a public hearing in October. Mayor Bramson asked all Council members to bring their amendments to the October meeting ready for voting.