Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Butternut Ridge. However, it was not definite whether these children would be <br />bussed to Butternut School (some buildings would be more than a mile from the <br />schools), whether or not the bus would enter the complex to pick up students, <br />or which street would be used for pick up if it did not. Tt was decided that <br />the schools would be asked for their input on this issue. Mr. Skoulis <br />questioned a notation on the plans that stated billboard signage. Mr. <br />Trevillian responded that they planned a permanent sign facing I-480. Mr. <br />Conway requested that they present a drawing of this since it was not shown on <br />their sign package. Mr. Trevillian further advised that the entrance sign <br />would be illtuni.nated with a flood light. An adjacent neighbor (not identified) <br />asked if a fence was planned between this property and the Butternut Ridge <br />homes. Mr. Trevillian agreed that a fence would be appropriate. Mr. Sepic, a <br />resident close to the recreation area, asked for all information on that area: <br />the clubhouse, lighting, hours of operation, height of the lights, and <br />lighting and buffering of the pool and tennis court areas. He is concerned <br />that these lights will shine into his home. Mr. Trevillian explained that <br />there is usually 24 hour access to the pool and courts, but normally there was <br />very little activity, and that all lights would be directed inward. Mre Conway <br />stated that he would be concerned about the decibel levels of these activities <br />at night and that most complexes limit the hours of this use. Mr< Gorris stated <br />that the original intent of the limited development of the corner lot was to <br />maintain the residential character of the area, and although the journalv?ntry <br />indicates a recreational use, there should be some limits on this use. Mr. <br />Orlowski pointed out that there were 3 different heights of light mentioned on <br />the plan and would like to lmow exactly what height, lumins, etc. were planned <br />for each location. Mr. Trevillian stated that his intent would be low level, <br />adequate ]ighting, and he will furnish that information later, stating he did <br />not want this to look like a K-Mart parking lot. Mr. Thomas questioned the <br />height of the chimneys and the location of the air conditioning tmits since he <br />is concerned that the noise might be heard by the adjacent neighborsa Mr. <br />Conway explained that the chimneys could exceed the 35 foot limitation <br />depending on their location. Mr. Furman stated the air conditioninjg? units <br />would be next to the buildii <br />condenser would be closer t <br />Trevillian pointed out that <br />noise certainly would not bo <br />to ask the developer to witl <br />forward the proposal on <br />requirements. Mr. Orlowski <br />rendering, which would show <br />plans are basically just <br />information was needed to s( <br />would like some information <br />Mr. Conway pointed out t <br />Architectural Review Board <br />Trevillian stated that perr <br />level of the review. It was <br />list of questions which muE <br />Butternut Ridge Apartment pr <br />the understanding that the <br />replaced with a more accepta <br />ground in compliance with tY: <br />like the Architectural Rev <br />following: all buffering a <br />suggestions for appropriate t <br />gs and since there is a 50 foot buffer area, no <br />han 50 feet from the residential property. Mr. <br />since he had to satisfy his own residents, the <br />:her the neighbors. The members discussed whether <br />draw in order to respond to their concerns or to <br />to the Architectural Board with a Iist of <br />would like a more accurate drawing, possibly a <br />more than what is shown now, stating that these <br />i floor plan. He believed that more in depth <br />e what this is going to look like. Mr. Skoulis <br />as to what the clubhouse is going to look like. <br />hat renderings are normally submitted to the <br />and brought ba.ck at the second meeting. Mr. <br />3ps he mi.sunderstood what was required at this <br />decided to forward this on to the A.R.B. with a <br />t be answered. B. Gorris moved to forward the <br />:)posal to the Architectural Board of Review with <br />present open retention system will have been <br />)le retention system, either underground or above <br />? memo from the Engineering Department;- we would <br />Lew Board to pay particular attention to the <br />_ong the southern perimeter of this development; <br />uffering of the recreational area, if necessary, <br />6