CCP 01-22-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved 0 to offer a compromise from staff's proposal, and the applicant allows for some stone on the west side, she ould bring that compromise to the Council, since they would likely be struggling with the same concerns. Baker stated that after reviewing the current proposal and the 2006 proposal, l"ll'S was not included on either. Gundlach replied that the 2006 proposal included stucco not EIFS and this distinction is not discussed in the staff report for the current proposal. Baker asked what materials would be used on the stairs towers. The applicant replied that is different sized hardiboard than what is proposed for the rest of the building. Mann asked how many units from Applewood Pointe face this building. Gundlach replied that from her understanding there are several units that have not sold, because they face this building and not the lake. Mann stated that there is a general consensus that a compromise on the amount of stone should be made so that the east and the west side have similar treatments. Gundlach replied that staff does not need to know the exact layout of the stone, but if the Commission could give a general direction on what they would expect, staff could work with the applicant between now and the Council meeting to come up with something acceptable. The applicant added that while the proposals do not show any of the landscaping, it won't look so plain when completely landscaped. Baker suggested that a different color and size hardiboard could be substituted for the stone in the 2006 proposal. The applicant suggested that they could tic into the decks on the west side by using a similar color siding and width to the decking material to create vertical bands down the west side. Baker asked the ommission how they felt about adding the vertical bands and not requiring stone on the west side. I loward plied that he is tine with the west side, however he is wondering how the Commission feels about the storie on the east side, The Commissioners discussed several ideas. Gundlach summarized their ideas which included requiring the stone to the top of the first floor and then use of the same hardiboard product that would be used in on the west side to replace the stone that would continue to the fourth floor. Balser replied that the Commission would let staff decide what architectural elements should be added. Gundlach asked the Commission how they felt about the architectural band. O'Brien replied that it was part of the approval from the last two proposals and the applicant should try and include some sort of band into this finish. The applicant replied that they could use a foam product for the band. Gundlach replied that would be acceptable to staff. Schiferl stated that he does not remember ever approving a plan that has had this many significant changes after the first approved plan. He added that he has reservations on voting to approve this application, because he can not visualize the plan. Gundlach replied that staff would like to have had a plan that they could have supported also, but the plan was submitted only a week and half before the meeting, which was not enough time to work with the applicant on revision. Baker added that the Commission would like to see the building completed, but with some architectural appeal. Motion by O'Brien, second by Howard to RECOMMEND THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF ON THE ISSUES NOTED IN THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. 4 ayes, 1 nay. Motion Approved. 0 Public Hearin€s: PL2007-005 Preliminary Plat Creating One Additional Lot for Development of a Single Family Home at 1239 12t1i Avenue NW Page 3 ol' 12