Board of Trustees/Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Special Joint Meeting
January 26, 2010 7 p.m.
PRESENT: Board of Trustees: Mayor Fixell; Trustees Hoyt, McGee, McGovern, Zollo
Planning Board: Members Aukland, Birgy, Raiselis, Tedesco
Staff: Administrator Blau; Counsel Shumejda; Building Inspector/Engineer
McGarvey; Planning Consultant Fish; Secretary D’Eufemia
ABSENT: Trustee Basher, Trustee Butler; Planning Board Chairman Friedlander
PUBLIC HEARING – HUDSON HARBOR (FERRY LANDINGS) – 41 HUDSON VIEW WAY – AMENDMENT TO SEQR FINDINGS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a joint public hearing on the 26th day of January, 2010, at 7 p.m. in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York, 10591, to hear, discuss, and consider an amendment to the Findings Statement for Ferry Landings, now known as Hudson Harbor.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing-impaired; a request must be made to the Village Clerk at least five days in advance of the meeting.
Mr. Frank Fish, Planning Consultant for the Village, stated it has been a few years since we went through this whole project. We went through the State Environmental Quality Review process and we had a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and a Final Environmental Impact Statement and zoning amendments. The Board of Trustees and Planning Board were co-lead agencies on this project. SEQR Findings were made which allowed the project to move forward with the zoning changes and then there was a review by the Planning Board and a detailed architectural review. Construction started and the first phase was done which went into sales and rentals. The applicant would like to revise the second phase slightly to respond to the current market situation, which is not terrific nationwide and in the northeast. Certain
things have done well and others have not done as well so they would like some modifications in the second phase. If the Boards are satisfied with those modifications, the SEQR process does not have to go back to square one but the Boards will have to note in the Findings the changes that are being made and why those changes do not have significant adverse impacts and if they did, how they fit into the SEQR record. The applicant could then go forth with the Planning Board for detailed review. Tonight’s meeting is to hear about the changes they propose in the second phase.
Mayor Fixell stated one of the significant issues is the height.
Mr. Fish stated they are suggesting a different configuration of the buildings in the front and they are suggesting a height that exceeds the height limit in the Findings and Zoning Ordinance which was 45 feet. The proposed height is between 50 ft. and 55 ft. The units in the center are slightly reconfigured to create a courtyard and they are lower – about two stories. The total number of units for the project does not change and the Floor Area Ratio approved is not being increased. In terms of the total size of the project, there is no impact. It is just a different distribution of the units. The applicant tonight will discuss the view sheds and how they are affected by the height and reconfiguration of the center part of the development.
Mr. John Jenkins of the Lessard Group, architects for the project, stated the changes represent their learning and working with the site for a number of years. What has become apparent is that they need to create clusters and neighborhoods in a development of this size. It is important what one sees when entering the site. They are trying to make the project the best they can. They have been troubled by the two large buildings in the center which would be seen from the H-Bridge and create a barrier. What they came up with was an alternate plan that creates a central park with a full acre of green space with two-story buildings so the first view from the H-Bridge is over these two-story buildings. On the waterfront they had buildings that were three stories over parking and there were elevator shafts and
mechanicals on top. They felt they could eliminate those and put another story which would be a more unique plan. This creates a distinct neighborhood and better arrivals for the project.
Mr. Jenkins stated with the approved plan the three view corridors were 80 ft., 100 ft., and 50 ft. With the proposed plan the view corridors are 80 ft., 120 ft., and 80 ft. The view corridors have, therefore, increased by a substantial amount with the one-acre central park. In regard to height, the approved plan was 50 ft. 6 in. to the top of the elevator overruns and stair towers. The proposed plan shows 55 ft. 6 in. In order to preserve the lightness of the upper floor, they set that top floor back and they are proposing that entire façade be glass. They have bay windows and varying heights within the parapet. They are proposing a small architectural tower for a sense of arrival. The parapet at the highest point is 4 ft. so that area would have a height of 59 ft. 6 in.
Mr. Jenkins reviewed with the Board a number of renderings; e.g., the different elevations for the buildings on the waterfront, the approved layout and the proposed layout, and approved view corridors and proposed view corridors.
Mayor Fixell questioned the function of the parapet. Mr. Jenkins stated it is an architectural ornament.
In regard to building materials, Mr. Jenkins stated there is a lot of glass, bay windows that project, the same stone as in the stone house, lighter pink brick and buff colored precast aluminum windows and at points there will be the heavy timber accents.
Mr. Tedesco stated he assumed these units have 10 ft. ceilings. He questioned whether they had considered 9 ft. ceilings. Mr. Jenkins stated from their sales experience, more ceiling height is desired. Mr. Tedesco stated he could appreciate that; however, the 9 ft. ceilings should be considered since the height has one effect for the buyer and another for the community. He stated they should also consider setting the buildings back from the park since there would now be higher buildings for people in the park. Mr. Jenkins stated he did not think moving the buildings back 5 ft. or 10 ft. would make much of a difference.
Mr. Birgy questioned how they would meet energy conservation requirements with the amount of glass being proposed. Mr. Jenkins stated it comes down to the type of glass used. There are a number of green initiatives that they believe would offset any potential issues with the glass. He noted this developer has been especially sensitive to energy conservation.
Mr. Jenkins presented elevations for the townhomes. He stated these would be no more than 25 ft. in height. The size of these townhomes has greatly decreased, which is market driven. There will be shingled roofs. There will be stone and brick. There are four clusters allowing access into the central park. Within the courtyard space there is a lot of glass.
Mr. Jenkins noted the proposed development has substantially less F.A.R. than originally approved – by about 90,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Fish questioned the height of the approved townhomes. Mr. Jenkins stated 45 ft. to the midpoint of the pitched roof. They are now proposing 25 ft.
Mayor Fixell read the following comments from Linda Viertel, Chair of the Waterfront Advisory Council, who could not be present this evening:
1. Town Homes: Scaled down size and open space surrounding the buildings – definite plus.
2. Increased viewsheds in town house and waterfront building size/placement – also definite asset for the project, the waterfront and views from the upper village.
3. Architecturally: rear elevations of town homes look like two different buildings – one side with stone facing, and the other side mostly metal and glass – very boxy. The front elevation holds together architecturally, the rear does not. Can these two “looks” be combined more gracefully?
4. No comment on interior town house plan concepts – don’t have the skill set to analyze.
5. Waterfront elevation – not having another walled building mass along the waterfront is an improvement – better to have the narrow side of the building facing the waterfront to allow for the 2 increased viewsheds, but the building is too high (Scale says 1’=20” but the building is only 1 and ¼” high? Why are cars pictured in the illustration? No cars can drive along or be parked in front of these buildings along the park area. Is this for comparison’s sake?)
• Can these two buildings be pushed back from the waterfront a few feet due to their increased height and its effect along the waterfront park?
• Can we have an illustration/elevations that compare this building height to the first townhouse structure approved so we can see the difference in scale?
• Can we have an illustration/elevations from the park/the river that will show us what these towering structures would look like for a pedestrian in the park, on the river? This was a request we made repeatedly the first time around.
6. South Elevation – architecturally – very “glassy” and metal – doesn’t match up well with the original townhouses.
• Ceiling height is way too high. If you scaled down from 11 feet or 11’6” to, say 9’, you save approximately 10 ft. of height. The total now looks to be about 55.8 not including the two end structures and go upward another 2 feet or so. That makes the buildings almost 60 feet high – much like Ichabod’s Landing. High ceilings are terrible environmentally, since it takes much more oil to heat high spaces, and the rooms needn’t be that tall. (Our home has 7’6” or 7’9” ceilings – very comfortable by most standards, and rooms heat up well. That is a 4’ difference and,
we have enjoyed living in this spaces for 22 years. So split the difference and have a 9 foot – or less – ceiling, less height, less heating costs.
North, west, east elevations – very boxy structurally, once again with uniformed punched out extensions – too symmetrical and flat-roofed.
• Will the brick be brick facing? Real brick?
• Devil is in the details in terms of aluminum windows, precast banding – we need to see the materials, as we did for the beautiful Stone House on West Main. Nice stone base and heavy timer lintels, brick, etc., but too much metal railing may look cheap – not sure until we see materials together. (The storefront make the building sort of look like a doctor’s office building.)
7. Interior level plans/penthouse – can’t comment on interior flow of rooms, etc.
8. Current Concept Plan – better on development’s interior open space than original plan
• Green pavers in between 2 waterfront buildings best use of open space near our waterfront park? We would need to plant medium height shrubs/trees to block viewing the cars but vegetation would allow some sighting to the town house open courtyard.
9. View corridor – definitely improved. Joan Raiselis mentioned the “bowl effect” looking at this development with higher buildings all around the perimeter and shorter ones in the interior. I don’t think that will be a problem viewed from the upper village because I don’t think the buildings will “read” that much differently, especially if can scale down the 2 waterfront buildings’ height. We won’t be looking at Hudson Harbor from an aerial perspective, so I don’t have trouble with this issue right now. Also, who knows what the third phase will look like in terms of structure height.
Overall, there are definite improvements on viewsheds, open interior space, scaled down townhouses, etc. but there are height issues that, I think, can be mitigated partially. The buildings, hopefully, can be set back a bit more from the park, which will also help this problem. Generally, I feel we can make a revised plan work beneficially for Cotter as well as for the Village. I am eager for both parties to work together so that National ReSources can have townhouses/condos the company can sell, and so that the village can live with some increased height but more open space.
Architecturally, I think the 2 waterfront buildings need “tweaking” so that the elements relate a bit more strongly to each other and to the townhomes that are already built. But once again, I think they are close, and would hope the village and National ReSources can come to a mutually agreed upon resolution as soon as possible.
Mr. Jenkins stated there are no parking spaces along the riverwalk and they will be using real brick.
Mr. Stu Schectman, a member of the Waterfront Advisory Council, stated the height of the proposed buildings along the river creates a separated feeling from the Village. Those two buildings would be like city blocks. From the riverfront park you will feel the height of those buildings. Mr. Jenkins stated the wall along the water will be greatly reduced. With the reduced height of the townhomes, people will see a lot more of Tarrytown up the hill. Trustee Zollo stated he did not think there would be much difference from the riverwalk; however, people will probably see a difference from the upper Village looking down.
Ms. Claudia Mausner, 48 Croton Avenue, stated she felt there might be a significant environmental impact from having these taller buildings on the waterfront. The more building in that space, the less benefit. To have higher buildings by the waterfront park seems unwise. The terms view sheds and view corridors are static. Having the central park adds to the development but is not a benefit to the community.
Ms. Carole Griffiths, Chair of the Environmental Council, stated she has not received copies of the plans for review and comment by the Council. She stated it would be valuable to have a rendering from the river looking up. Mayor Fixell stated there should also be a rendering from the Village looking down.
Mr. Charles Davey, a member of the Environmental Council, stated he felt the ceiling height should be reduced and he would like more information on the environmental impact of the glass. There needs to be more information about plantings, storm water runoff, amount of asphalt, etc. Mayor Fixell stated all those issues will be reviewed by the Planning Board.
Mr. Robert Kogan, 87 Main Street, stated it is interesting how the height exception for the elevator shafts and mechanicals is now becoming the norm for the entire building. He stated we do not need a “Trump atmosphere” for this Village.
Ms. Francesca Spinner, Wilson Park Drive, stated there are a lot of natural views in Tarrytown ( e.g., Washington Irving School, Main Street) and those should be borne in mind. She questioned whether these changes have any impact on parking for the general public. Mr. Jenkins stated there is no difference.
Mr. Aukland stated he felt the applicant had covered all the points raised in earlier discussions and he welcomed the public input. He stated it had been his understanding there would be a smaller floor area on the top floor and it would be set back so it would not be so visible from the riverwalk; however, what is being presented shows it would be noticeable. Ms. Raiselis stated for the applicant to present 8 inches as a setback is a little deceptive. Mr. Jenkins stated they felt the setback and the bay windows establish the exterior envelope edge. They have been trying to balance the Boards’ comments yet be sure what they are left with on this additional floor warrants the efforts. Ms. Raiselis suggested there might be a compromise by removing every third apartment. That would allow the setback the
Boards feel is important and the applicant would still have the top floor.
Mayor Fixell questioned the square footage of each unit on the top floor. Mr. Jenkins stated the one bedroom units vary from 840 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft.; the two bedroom units vary from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,500 sq. ft. and the end unit which is three bedrooms is 1,944 sq. ft. Mr. Jenkins noted these number are based on what has been sold in the stone house.
Mr. Tedesco questioned how many parking spaces are being provided in the parking area between the two buildings closest to the river. Mr. Jenkins stated that has been reduced to about 30. They would use green permeable pavers. They have an overlay for a detailed landscaping design. Mr. Tedesco stated the Planning Board was concerned about parking at all that is close to the riverwalk and would like that parking to “disappear.” Mr. Jenkins stated they agree and are committed to it not feeling like a parking lot.
Mr. Blau stated he has shared this concept plan with the funding partners for the riverwalk park and a question has been posed whether the applicant can produce a diagram showing how this plan is connected to the park. Mayor Fixell stated there have been discussions about that entry point being important as an internal public access to the park. Mr. Jenkins stated they can provide a diagram of pedestrian access points but they have not changed that. The sidewalks and pedestrian connections will be maintained.
Mr. Joe Cotter of Hudson Harbor stated there are three substantial differences in the approved plan and the proposed plan. (1) The view from the river – 50 ft. of wall has been eliminated; (2) One acre of impermeable space has been eliminated with the creation of the central park; (3) 90,000 sq. ft. of volume has been eliminated. Mr. Cotter stated the parapets could be eliminated from the plan to reduce the height. He added that if the Findings Statement could be amended to allow for a maximum height of 52 feet, they could accordingly adjust the plans.
Mr. Tedesco stated overall he felt what is being proposed is a better plan, especially if the parapets are eliminated and the maximum height is 52 ft.
Ms. Raiselis stated she felt overall the massing is a much better plan. She felt the height is an issue; however, she would consider a maximum height of 52 ft. The lower buildings in the center will give the feeling of less mass.
Mayor Fixell stated there are questions that need to be refined. While it seems to moving in the right direction, he did not feel the Boards were ready to make a decision this evening. He felt the hearing should be continued and the applicant should supply the information requested by the Boards and public this evening.
Mayor Fixell moved, seconded by Trustee Zollo, that the public hearing be continued on Tuesday, February 2nd, at 7 p.m. All members of the Board of Trustees assented.
Mr. Tedesco moved, seconded by Mr. Aukland, that the public hearing be continued on Tuesday, February 2nd, at 7 p.m. All members of the Planning Board assented.
MEETING ADJOURNED – 8:50 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
