Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables decision on Bloom building siding after developer installs color different from PIP materials
Summary
Noel Development apologized after installing a different James Hardie accent siding color than the material image in the approved PIP; council tabled the item and asked for additional options and a recommendation from the Planning Commission.
The council on Oct. 20 took up an application to revise exterior materials for The Bloom, a 98-unit mixed-use building on Monona Drive, after the developer installed an accent siding color different from the material image included in the approved PIP.
Matt Mertos of Noel Development apologized to the council and said the selected product was intended to match the approved renderings; he said the color installed (a James Hardie product the applicant described as a premium/"dream" finish) had different appearance in strong daylight and that the originally illustrated color had been discontinued by the manufacturer. Designer Lea Teske (JLA) told the council the installed material is a high-quality product with finish and substrate warranties and that replacing material now would generate additional waste and a sizable cost.
Planning staff told the council the Planning Commission reviewed the request and forwarded it to council with no formal recommendation while asking the applicant to explore alternatives. Staff and the applicant described four options: allow the installed materials to remain, paint the installed siding to better match the original appearance (which would forfeit the manufacturer's finish warranty), remove and replace the installed siding with a closer James Hardie color, or replace the installed siding with a third-party-finished James Hardie product that reproduces a wood-worn look closer to the PIP images. The applicant provided a preliminary estimate for replacing the siding of about $60,000–$75,000 and noted a timeline and sustainability costs associated with demolition and disposal.
Council members voiced concern about precedent and compliance with PIP approvals. Several members said when a PIP includes a photographic materials board it is reasonable to expect built materials to align closely with that board; others emphasized the Planning Commission’s role in material review and suggested the applicant return with a proposed alternative palette. The council voted to table the item so the developer can coordinate with staff and the Planning Commission and bring specific alternative materials and samples back for review. The applicant agreed to provide samples and to work with staff on a timely schedule so the matter can be considered at the next Plan Commission meeting.
