Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers show 47-unit senior condominium concept; ARB raises fire-safety and visual-scale concerns
Summary
Architects presented a 47-unit senior condominium design at 234 No. Bedford Road featuring 3 floors of residential units over partially underground parking. The ARB praised attempts to reduce scale with a mansard roof and screening but asked for more detail on materials, site lines and fire-safety implications of wood-frame construction.
Developers and architects presented the concept for a 47-unit senior condominium at 234 North Bedford Road during the Mount Kisco Architectural Review Board meeting on May 21.
Architect Kim Martelli described the project as 47 residential condominiums — two one-bedroom units and 45 two-bedroom units — arranged across three residential floors above one partially underground parking level. The proposal calls for 21 on-grade parking spaces and 50 spaces below the building. The standard two-bedroom unit was described as "less than 1,100 square feet." The team proposed textured vinyl siding in a clay color, a mansard roof to lower perceived height, and wood balconies with pressure-treated decking.
"We've tried to create a façade that gives it a residential feel," said project representative Matt Warshauer and noted the siting is intended to blend into the hillside. He and architect Martelli said mature trees along the property line would be retained and supplemental plantings added to screen views from the road.
Board members expressed design support for efforts to break up massing but raised a major concern about construction type. Chairman Frank Tortorello asked about the fire-safety implications of a large wood-frame building, observing that the village's fire-fighting resources could be challenged in the event of a large fire, even though the design would meet code. The applicants noted the building would meet sprinkler and code requirements but the ARB requested additional detail on materials, fire-safety measures and site-line drawings.
The ARB did not vote to approve the concept; members requested more detailed elevations, materials samples and site-line views and indicated they would review the model and revised materials at a future meeting or walk the site before further action.
