October 2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fine, but if you're looking at payback costs, that's a whole nother matter. When the argon gas leaks out and the seals are broken. You don't weigh those costs. DeFrees: I disagree with you. (Unintelligible due to distance from the microphone) I would like to have the windows just as they are, but no matter what we do we're going to alter them in some way. To what degree, what is the dividing line... do we deny them the change that would help preserve the room or do we take the chance of it collapsing. Klusezinski: We have to be cautious because otherwise you're opening the door to everyone's best effort and you're throwing away this that is very objective for us to use. DeFrees: (Unintelligible due to distance from the microphone) I'm not here to argue with anyone, I'm here to learn. Klusezinski: Anyone else to speak in support? D Sporleder: Professor of Architecture Emeritus, University of Notre Dame, I do want to speak in favor of the petition and on the point that it does seem to me to be of value to have the experimental data right on the table as the Commission addresses these issues. It's important to keep clear the strength in a quality base on which one works. The standards and guidelines are important, but sometimes taking a second look is warranted. Klusczinski: Any member of the public wishing to speak in opposition? Doolitte: Wayne Doolittle, President Chapin Park Neighborhood Association. For my way of understanding this there's no reason to have a test because it's flawed I'm always surprised when there are other alternatives available even if you don't like them specifically, they are still available and those things might be permitted. We can not, with those guidelines, we can not change those windows. You must have the exact windows. There are exact copies with a dual pane, you don't change the profile at the sill. Speaking for me, the neighborhood, and others on the board, there's no way that this should be allowed. If you allow it, then you have lost the battle. Anybody else can put whatever they want in their houses. Once you say yes, you've lost everybody else. That's what you're looking out. Do we throw out anything that has to do with preservation. There are certain things that go along with it. You correct your problems or you sell it. It's constant repair, I've been in mine 31 years and I'm still working on it. I think there are other alternative, but I think that we've come to a point... in the standards it says you can't do that. They say no, you can't do it. We don't need to argue at all. There are other ways. I don't think that it should pass. Uj dak: Will you read the standards again? Klusczinski: There are pages in the Chapin Park book that pertain. Certain pages defer anything more stringent to landmark guidelines first. This house has been a local landmark since 197311974, and CP was established in March 2005. So the Group B standards say that the building must be maintained as is or preferably returned to the original. Ujdak: Ijust wanted that to be clear. Peterson: Just a reminder again, your job is to determine if the application is appropriate, in light of the guidelines, the district and the house. Is there a detriment to the public if this is allowed. And finally is there a hardship in denying it. Those are the three factors. When you vote, you will have to say why, say your rationale for denying. This application, by testimony, dictates that you are trying to find a solution that's undefined. In that way, I'd view it as somewhat a conditional C of A, that is an exit strategy must already be applied. What's the security that the Commission has that the removal-will occur.-Since they're looking to solve a larger and undefined problem here, you should consider that. If you believe that's how it's been portrayed to you. Klusczinski: Thank you Shawn, let me close public hearing right now. Any additional discussion? Linda? Riley: I'm almost afraid to say this, but why couldn't the window be altered by putting a second. pane ofglass when you reglaze it. Klusczinski: The short answer to that Linda is that what they've done with modern windows is that they've eliminated the gap where a storm would sit, removing the insulating quality of the window. 15