06/11/1991 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

constructed as a residence. In response to the members' questions, Mr. Predota , advised that there would be 175 to 200 feet from the back of the proposed . building to the rear property line. Mr. Skoulis questioned if the 5 feet between the corner of the building and the adjacent property conformed to code. Mr. Conway responded that the current commercial codes required that the building be either right on the property line or 5 feet away. The new codes require a larger setback. He further stated that the Law Department ha.d advised that any proposal that is initially brought to the Commission while the old code is in force is reviewed and approved tmder the old code. Assistant City Engineer McDermott stated that a portion of the building sits over a previously approved drainage system and would have to be adjusted or protected. Mr. Predota will install a steel pipe in that area. He explained to Mr. Orlowski that at present an access door and an overhead door are planned only for the front, however, he is considering door on the side as well. A. Skoulis moved to forward this proposal to the Architectural Review Board, to Safety and Engineering, seconded by J. Thomas, and unanimously approved. 1) Butternut Ridge Apartments, property located south of I-480, west of S.R. 252, and north of lots facing Butternut Ridge Road. Proposal to construct apartment complex. (Different proposals for same property previously approved by Planning Commission tmder the name of Steeple Walk on December 12, 1989 and later on October 23, 1990). Mr. Trevillian, representing Summit properties, explained they are proposing a substitute._plan for those that were previously approved for this property. Mr. Furman, architect, explained that their philosophy is that apartments should be distinctive comrm,n-ities, and have explored ways to develop them. He presented slides of some of their other projects, as well as some showing the normal, back to back, side to side type of buildings. They attempt to cluster their building so that the units are away from the parking lot, and so that the maximum number are oriented toward a common space or court yard. He showed the plan for the previous proposal pointing out that these builclings were all over 200 feet, back to back, and oriented to the parking lot with detached garages. In their complex half of the garages are incorporated within the building, and the majority of the units are oriented away from the parking lots with a few imits oriented to the court yardse The site plans are similar in that the circulation will be on the north side of the site, and the buffers will be maintained on the south. The clubhouse, with heavy landscaping, will be at the entry and parking will be located behind it. The elevations of the buildings conform to the code and are massed so that the tallest portion of the building is in the middle with the remainder being stepped down to one and two stories. The overall length of the buildings would vary from 140 to 160 feet, and the buildings will be stucco with stucco chimneys, wood clapboard siding with wood trim. In response to questions, Mr. Trevillain explained that they now own about 70 apartment complexes and have only sold four or five of their developments. Their parent company has been in business since 1972, but their real growth started in 1982 when they introduced these new concepts. Mr. Thomas questioned why this development would be feasible for their company when two other companies could not get financing. He is concerned that they, too, might back out. Mra Trevillian speculated that these developers were unable to get financing becaus.e of the savings and loan problems, and that their projects were financed through life insurance companies and pension funds. He stated that they have made feasibility studies and are confident tha.t they will continue; however, they 3