11/19/1987 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? BOARD OF BUILDING CODE APPEALS NOVEMBER 19, 1987 PAGE 2 Mr. Carlisle, Biskind Development, and B. Phise, representing.the Audax Building Materials Company, presented samples of the material used on the Plaza South Building. Mr. Carlisle explained that the term dryvit was used in the minutes approving the building, but if he used that term, he used it generically, since at that time he was aware that they would be using Audax (it was known as Sure-Coat at that time). He explained that there are thirty- nine products similar td dryvit on the market at this time, and the primary difference between these cement based products and Audax is that the dryvit is basically a system which uses specific materialsa Audax is a vin_yl coating similar to paint which can be applied over several different materials and is far more raater resistant, and has a more substantial tensile strength. They believe that the Audax is more suitable to a retail use since it is stronger and less likely to be damaged by customers or vehicles. Since Plaza South was being constructed during the winter, the Audax takes fewer good da_ys to apply. He pointed out there was a failure of the material on some areas since, due to the weather conditions, moisture was absorbed, but they were aware that this could happen and decided to take a calculated risk. Mr. Schulz is concerned since he has made inquiries and has been unable to get any information on Audax. Mr. Phise explained that until thi.s year the product has been marketed under a variety of labels, but as of January l, 1987, it.is being marketed under the Audax label by the patent holders of the product. It is also nossible, since.Mr. Schulz was checking itito dryvit-type materials, this product might not be considered in the same catagory. He further advised that the product is manufactured in Cleveland, and he would give the Board addresses of the building where it has been used locally. Mr. Carlisle explained that prior to using the product, they had checked out buildings in Reno, Nevada, on which Audax was applied and where there are 65 degree temperature swings in a 24 hour period. Mr. Phise ex- plained that since this is not a cement based product it is not as subject to freeze damage, and also that they have an additive which allows them to apply the product during the winter so that if there is a freeze before the product dries no damage will be done. Mr. Phise explained in detail how the product was applied and the materials over which it could b e used. R. Burk moved to accept the product, seconded by J. Kazak, and unanimously approved. VI. NEW BUSINESS: Joint discussion with the Architectural Board of Reyiew pertaining to exterior materials. Mr. Pattison was present as a representative of the Arcliieectural Board of Review. Building Commissioner Conway explained that since, under the Dresent b;uilding codes, this Board no longer has the authority to approve types of materials to be used on commercial structures, he believes that the twa Boards can work together to discuss materials acceptable for use in the citv. Mr. Conway would like to set up a more definite criteria, from an aesthetic noint of view, for submission to the Boards -_ that he is aware of what the vEirious Boards actually want and Dointed out that the Law Department has suggested that such a criteria be drawn up. Mr. Pattison stated that the Architectural Board cannot approve nroducts, the_y can only aDprove on the basis of aesthetics, and that most communities accept any masonry product and any block if it is a decorative type of blocky preferably integrally colored. He stated t:hat there are no actual rules that the Architectural Board can follow, but poiiited out that in the case o.f a remodeling, there is a tendency to anprove since it is usually an improvement over what is existing. He pointed out