Architectural Review Board/Planning Board
Village of Tarrytown
Special Joint Meeting
May 4, 2010 7 p.m.
Present from Architectural Review Board: Chairman Perry; Members Carr, Lambert
Absent from Architectural Review Board: Members Byrnes, Mignogna, Pinckney
Present from Planning Board: Chairman Friedlander; Members Aukland, Birgy,
Raiselis, Tedesco
Also Present: Administrator Blau; Counsel Shumejda; Engineer McGarvey;
Secretary D’Eufemia
HUDSON HARBOR (FORMERLY FERRY LANDINGS, LLC) – 41 HUDSON VIEW WAY – ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR PHASE II
Mr. John Jenkins of the Lessard Group, architects for the development, stated that after Phase I was constructed, the developer realized some changes would be preferable for Phase II based on market conditions. Most purchasers have been older adults who are downsizing, and they are not looking for large units. As a result, the developer came before the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board seeking revisions to the Findings Statement, which were approved. They proposed increasing density on the waterfront by having Buildings 1A and 2A (the “lookout” condominium buildings) each be four stories over parking at a maximum height of 52 ft. They then proposed decreasing density in the center portion by having Buildings 2B and 2C (townhouse buildings) each with
fourteen units, two stories in height with an approximately one acre courtyard in the center. These changes introduced a different price point and brought down the scale in the center of the development. There were a lot of benefits to the amendments. It added a lot of green space – about an acre in the center portion. The view corridors were increased. There is a reduction in the overall volume density.
Mr. Jenkins reviewed elevation drawings with the Boards.
Mr. Jenkins noted Buildings 1A and 2A will have a lot of glass. The lower levels are a combination of the stack stone and the timber lintels. The upper two levels are predominantly glass. The building has the feeling of a ruin with a new building being constructed in the remains of the old building. In addition, they set back the upper level varying from 5 ft. to 10 ft. They introduced some shading to assist in maintaining the climate control in the building. The glass will have Low E coating. The tint will be a blue gray – lighter or darker to meet the energy code requirements. Their goal is to keep the tint as light as possible. The windows will be a double glazed system with air or argon gas between the panes. The windows will be operable.
Mr. Jenkins stated the townhomes will be more in keeping with the architectural style of the stone house. Each of the townhomes will have a different look but they will tie
together. They will be varying the roof heights and introducing outdoor terraces including roof terraces. There will be some river views but they will also have garden views.
Mr. Jenkins stated the developer is looking to move forward with the waterfront buildings, and they will continue to develop the plans for the townhomes.
Mr. John Imbiano of IQ Landscape Architects stated they are proposing High Pressure Sodium lights for the project site. For the “lookout” buildings so there is not excessive stone, there will be plantings with low retaining walls and the use of perennials or ornamental grasses which will soften the façade. For the space between the lookout buildings there will be low stone walls with a bluestone cap about 3 ft. high with a 3 ft. evergreen screen on top of that. That will block the view of this courtyard from the RiverWalk. There will be an iconic pavilion, 16 ft. high, as a terminus to the courtyard. They have shown shade trees at the edge of the courtyard and down the center there would be more upright trees, even flowering trees. There could be seating niches and maybe some art
sculpture. In terms of paving materials, they are looking at eco pavers.
Mr. Perry and Mr. Carr expressed concern about the pavilion. Mr. Perry stated the wall and stone arch at the end are a little too strong. There needs to be some feeling of the river at that location. Mr. Carr stated the iconic pavilion keeps people from going in but it also keeps people inside from going out. Mr. Jenkins stated this area is somewhat private. It is accessible but it needs a more private feel. Mr. Carr stated the concept is fine but this type of distinctive object needs more grace. Mr. Perry stated it needs to be more transparent.
In regard to the lookout buildings, Mr. Perry stated he was a little concerned about the lineal length of the glass and maybe that could be broken up. He felt the transparency at the top is a good idea. Mr. Jenkins stated their intent is that the window framing will be thin. The heaviness will be at the base of the building. “We could have more ins and outs.”
Mr. Carr expressed concern about the long façade of the looking buildings and stated he would like to see more variation on the third floor which would bring more weight to the lobby area.
In regard to Buildings 2B and 2C, Mr. Carr stated he realized these plans are still being developed; however, there is a lack of difference in the colors. It needs another color to help break things up. There should also be a break up in the windows which would make the townhomes feel like different houses.
*Mr. Carr left the meeting.
Upon inquiry, Mr. Jenkins stated they are still waiting for the energy modeling to be done. Mr. Birgy urged Mr. Jenkins to work with the developer to explore greater energy preserving methods.
Dr. Friedlander noted the approval for the lookout buildings was for 52 units in each; however, the floor plans show 50 units. Mr. Jenkins stated the current plan is 50. They are trying to preserve some flexibility in the plans. They are developing combination development plans so units could be combined which provides more options for buyers. The actual number of units in the buildings could drop depending on how much square footage people want.
Board members stated they will need to see more detailed plans and agreed at this time to move forward only with Buildings 1A and 2A. It was stated this matter should be continued on Wednesday, May 19th at 8 p.m. and the architect should address:
1. The iconic pavilion
2. Façade of the buildings
3. Detailed studies on how to screen garage
4. Continue to investigate screening and share energy modeling as it develops
5. Colors of the mullions
It was further stated the architect, as he moves forward with plans for the townhomes, should address:
1. Introducing more color, texture and varying heights
2. Complimenting the colors for the condos and townhomes
MEETING ADJOURNED – 9:10 p.m.
Kathleen D’Eufemia
Secretary
| 
