October 2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sill is pointed out but the Jeld Wen solution imposes a different shape, cross section for its sill. It attempts to match a 1 7/8s nose to something that was two inches, which however was 7/8s on the original illustration; however the shape is significantly different when seen from the side. A large difference that in the existing condition established by the photograph of 710 Park Ave dated October 6, 2006 I want to point out that the existing windows have an extended sill, that I want to call "sill ears", on each side of the window sash line. That's this little area right here, probably a couple of inches on each side. The Jeld Wen solution does not impose that change and are cut off flush with the jamb, flush with the side jambs so it remains to be seen how that particular feature would be reconciled with the existing conditions since the Jeld Wen solution also proposes an aluminum cladding. So if that was to be amended I don't know if that the solution presented to us calls for that. The site investigation called into question my assessment of windows bearing a 4 9/16 jamb width would fit into the existing opening that seem to be 6 3/a inches. So therefore, it should be noted that they can be modified; but it would involve jamb extensions, fabricated and installed on the inner surface of the jambs as they would come in from Jeld Wen and a stool extension would have to be amended also to bring it in to the living area. I would be happy to take anyone's questions as I thumb through my notes. Professor Enderle did establish that the very long window that is also in view from the bay window interior zone is not called for replacement at this point and should be noted. That's all I have, without any questions. Lynn Patrick: Okay. Shawn I am not sure how to proceed from this point. Shawn Peterson: I guess there are other individuals who inspected the property. Were there any other findings based on that they would like to add to the record for discussion or. Tim Klusczinski: There is an incidental finding that being that there were 10 windows called for in the C of A, 4 of those ten are straight top windows and 6 of them existing upstairs in Professor Enderle's house are arch top. There is no drawing here in the C of A submission that remedies, or I guess conveys, some replacement that he intends for the arch top windows. Joann Sporleder: So, in that regard may I suggest with Counsel's approval that we separate this application into two parts: one concerning the four windows and the other concerning the six arched windows on the second floor. Shawn Peterson: It has been suggested that this application be dissected to include, to consider only the four windows, and then the remaining six at a different time. That approval would have to be, actually, from the applicant himself amending his C of A to offer only the four this time and to withdraw as to the ten, or the other six, I apologize, and that is something that the applicant would have to do, and so, if your desire that, we can pose that to the applicant. Georges Enderle: Well that is something that I can do immediately. 2 N