October 1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• two in the front and one around the side.. Mr. Fine questioned if there were any other basement windows. Mr. Duvall noted that, the right side of the building has a sun porch and the rear has a screened in porch, neither have' basements. Mr. Fine asked if the windows were. beyond repair. Mr. Duvall responded that the windows were made of steel and had been in contact with soil and water and thus were pretty well rusted. Mr. Duvall noted that due to the owners statement of compliance with the commissions decision, that the owner would probably seek an alternative replacement window if the application were turned down, however, this is uncertain. Mr. Oxian questioned how much light could possibly come through the basement windows, he noted that _through his own experience with basement windows that they do not give much light. Mr. Duvall noted that the amount of light would depend on how direct it is and since they are north facing windows he concurs with Mr. Oxian in that the basement windows can not give much natural light. Mr. Fine asked if the owner had chosen glass block mainly for security purposes. 'Mr. Duvall stated that security does appear to have been the owners greatest concern, however, the application stated, that the owners wanted to achieve security, and thermal efficiency. Mr. Duvall noted that glass block is not an energy efficient' product. Mr. Fine asked if the owner had looked at any other type of window units. Mr. Duvallresponded that as far as he knows the owner has not. Mr. Oxian moved that the application be put into the Standards 'and Maintenance Committee and that they come up with a recommendation for next month after talking with the owner and coming up with a compromise. Mr. Talley seconded the motion.'The motion passed unanimously. 3) 1997-0902-2 - 1055 Riverside Drive = (A)Replace existing cement -asbestos . roof shingles with high profile asphalt shingles on the main roof of the house and repointing the main chimney. (B)The applicant also wants to replace the garage doors and reconstruct the failing cement block parapet over the garage doors. Mr. Duvall presented the Staff Report and distributed photographs. He noted that the owner, Mr. Leone, and his architect, Mr. Crummlish, were both present. Mr. Oxian stated that the application should be split and that the Commission should first vote on the replacement of the roof and repointing of the chimney:. Mrs. Choitz moved to approve part "A" of 'the application; concerning the roof and chimney. Mrs. Petrassseconded the motion. Mr. Crummlish presented the Commission with a sample of the proposed roofing material. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Duvall continued with the staff recommendation for the proposed alterations to the garage. Mr. Crummlish noted that he and Mr. Duvall had talked about an alternative door. The new concept is to use a flush door with applied battens'to replicate the patterns in'the original door. Since the door only has a single row of windows at the top, the squares below the windows could be painted a dark color to give the illusion of two rows of glass. Mr. Crummlish further stated that the size of the doors were different. Presently there are three seven foot wide openings and no service door. This would be changed to two nine foot wide doors and the installation of a service door. This alteration is necessary do to the fact that cars are wider now. Mr. Crummlish further stated that the lack of a service door has caused security problems in keeping the garage locked. There was some discussion as to how, through the use of battens and paint, one could better replicate the existing doors. Mr. Talley questioned if the • additions to the doors would inhibit the doors operation.. Mr. Crummlish stated that they would not, that they would be cut to fit properly. Mr. Oxian asked if the drawing in the packets were the doors the applicant wanted to