Laserfiche WebLink
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRTATENESS STAFF REPORT <br />- RECOMMENDATION <br />The applicant proposes to alter 3 attic,story windows by replacement,with new <br />Andersen windows per the documentation submitted. Each - window has-its own <br />character - and context issue and they are.- therefore dealt with separately. <br />First the front window presently only has an upper sash, effective-we ather <br />resistance being provided by a storm sash. The remaining upper sash has 9 <br />.window panes., The design , of - the lower 'sash is not known. This condition <br />: 'appears unchapged'from "the 1977,,6urvey documentation. Staff recommends ' <br />approval of a- replacement window." at this location with - upper;,sash muntins' ' <br />provided in the 9 lite_ configuration. ! <br />The "conditions at the.rear, window - are - similar, -with missing bottom sash and an <br />upper ,sash of '12 panes. At'this -location the applicant, seeks to enlarge the <br />window to provide-egress area opportunity for a window. air <br />conditioner. This window is in the rear at a location heavily obscured by <br />trees. Although the. Guide lines • prohibit._ new window .installations - which alter <br />the" scale and _,proportion'of . the. design, the proposed installation of, a <br />somewhat 1 "arger: window may. ,be•.aceomplished,without negative affect on the . <br />overall _ design'of - the - building'or the district context. Staff recommends <br />approval, <br />The 3rd�window- located at the is somewhat more problematic.- Here, an <br />original sash of �12,panes is clearly visible from the- street. Since it <br />is fixed, operational issues should not apply the I window could,therefore <br />be retained even with moderate deterioration if storm protection -were <br />provided. Staff recommends retention of.this historical and denial of <br />II the request for its replacement. <br />DBD <br />4/14/98 <br />