CCP 01-22-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved *representative for FW Gordon approached the Commission to address the Commission's questions. He stated at with the previous two plans the building was under a different owner, who had chosen a finish that could not be completed within the proposed budget for both plans. He stated that the only way the project can be completed is to decrease the amount of stone on the building and change the stone band to an EIFS band, so that they can increase the budget for the interior finish. The stone band was never proven how it could be attached to the building. O'Brien asked why they changed from stucco to EIFS. The applicant replied that they interchange the two all the item. O'Brien replied that EIFS is a questionable material, especially with metal stud back ups like this building. The applicant responded that the buildings that have EIFS and are failing are the ones that did not have EIFS applied correctly and they would follow the proper procedures to install it. O'Brien replied that there are several cities that have banned its use, since it is so difficult to install properly, and does not believe that the applicant would be able to install it properly. The applicant stated that they are concerned about the proposed stone band, since several vendors have stated that their product could not be applied properly with how the building is currently constructed, which is why they would like to replace the stone with a different product. The new foam product would have the look of the stone, but not the weight of it. Baker asked the applicant how they felt about staff's recommendations. The applicant replied that while he understood the Cities interest in separating a commercial building from Applewood Pointe, he believes the height of the building will separate the two structures and the amount of stone would not be necessary. O'Brien stated that having stone or similar looking product on four sides will allow for a more consistent design and would make the building a better neighbor to Applewood Pointe. The applicant replied that they made these lahanger to help it tie in better with the Applewood Pointe building, since they do not have much stone. He iggested that the cornice band could be dropped a level and the stone brought up to that point. lie added that they are willing to compromise to a certain extent, however the previous owners have left the project upside down and they are just trying to make the project work. They believe the building would be nice looking with less stone, and now that winter is rolling in the cost of applying the stone would increase. O'Brien asked ifthey would consider using the horizontal siding instead of EIFS. The applicant replied that they could use a hardiboard stucco panel instead of EIFS. O'Brien stated that would be a better product than EIFS. Vern More, President of the Applewood Pointe Cooperative, stated that since this is a gateway to New Brighton that the exterior finish should be high quality. They would like to see an architectural element added to the west side of the building since a number of units look onto the building at that side and believe it could be done without a lot of additional expense. Balser asked staff if they are satisfied with the plain west side with the addition of the stone band. Gundlach replied that the way the code is written it is difficult for staff to require a higher finish on the west side, the code focuses on the road way, which is Old Hwy 8. The applicant replied that they would consider adding some of the stucco hardipanel to the west side, in exchange for lowering the stone down a level on the front side. Schiferl stated that the applicant has been part of the project for sometime and the Commission is being asked to modify the application because of the cost and technical reasons, which could have been addressed in the pervious two applications. He added that it seems reasonable, whether it's part of the code or not, if the applicant would like the City to compromise on the amount of stone for the front, then they should do something architecturally pleasing on the west side. Baker stated that the City is compromising on three sides of the building by stating that it is requiring only stone on one side instead of four sides and does not believe that the City should compromise any more, Gundlach replied that staff has struggled it"with this proposal, since the building has a special use permit for exceeding the allowed height and when that as approved staff tools into account what the finished product would look like. However, staff is amendable to working with the applicant since they purchased from foreclosure. She added that if the Commission would Page 2 of 12