1995-07-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

199 DESIGN CONTROL DISTRICT, DISTRICT C. KNOWN AS THE RIDGE STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT'; APPEAL: BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REViEW DECiSiON RE: 222 SOUTH STREET Ms. Mary_ Gilliam? appellant of the BAR's recent decision to allow hardi-r>lank sidin~ to be used on the exterior of 222 South Street. asked Council to ur>hold the earlier BAR decision not to allow the hardi-r>lank to be used. or to delay a decision until more information on hardi-ptank is available. Ms. Cdlliam stated that she has called other cities and has either found no one familiar with hardi-t~lank or found that its use is discoura~oed. Ms. Gilliam stated that hardi-r>lank is not an historic material. Mr. Brent Nelson. 214 South Street. exr>ressed concern about the lack of coordination between the Citv's building officials and BAR in approving materials, noting that Pinnacle Construction was allowed to get to the last stages of construction before they were required bv the building code to address the fire code rating of the walls. Mr. Nelson also exr>ressed concern that reconsideration of the materials was not made known to the adjacent property owners, was not on the BAR's written a~,enda, and was not announced as bein~ r>art of the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Nelson suggested that a stop work order be made following an appeal of a BAR decision. Ms. Peggy Van Yahres. Vice Chair of the Board of Architectural Review, stated that the issue of a change in siding was brought before the BAR after the fire code rating problem was identified, noting that the developer had wanted to use wood siding originally. Ms. Van Yahres stated that the BAR approved the hardi-plank for the following reasons: i) it could meet the fire rating; 2) the building is a new building, not an addition or renovation of an existing building; and 3) the building is not easily seen from the public right-of-way. Ms. Van Yahres stated that she believes the decision to allow the developer to use the hardi-plank is reasonable Ms. Van Yahres added that she thinks Mr. Nelson brought up some good points for the BAR's consideration and agreed that the BAR needs to look into ways to assure that there is compliance with what is preliminarily approved by the BAR, and to make sure that agenda items or additions to the agenda are made known to the public. Ms. Daugherty asked Ms. Giiliam if her main.objection to hardi-plank is its appearance, and Ms. Gilliam replied that hardi-plank is a veD~ flat surface that does not take paint well, and she is concerned about how- it will age. Ms. t~lliam stated that before the material is used more statistics or documentation on it should be available. Responding to a question from Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, stated that allowing siding material to deteriorate within the historic district would be a violation of the ordinance. Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Gouldman stated that the City Code is silent on BAR notice requirements. Mr. William Park of Pinnacle Construction, developer of the project, stated that hardi-plank has been on the market since at least 1926 and comes with a 50-year warrantee. Mr. Park stated that the Fire Captain has said that the siding must be non-combustible material:- Mr. Park also noted that an original concern by the appellants to the projectwas fire safety'and the'building~s access to fire trucks. ~ ~ - Samples of painted hardi-plank and woo.d siding were shown to City Council. Mr. Vandever made a motion to uphold the BAR's decision and Ms. Slaughter seconded the motion. Mr. roscano Said~ that the Council spends a ~eat ~d~eal of time thinkina abO~f, who .to appoint to the BAR ~d?therefore feelssthat a certain amount of autono.n)y ~5:'~iS~"be arante41;. BAR members, and Council should not second-waess a decision such a~ t'hi~~;~'~'':'' ~'~-~.~ '"