October 2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Discussion of modern window building techniques transpires here among Commissioners Klusczinski, Sporleder, Riley. Klusczinski: Discussion is closed, I'll entertain a motion. Zeiger: I'll make a motion to deny C ofA 2007-0905A as it's not in keeping with Chapin Park standards and it's landmark standards, and this is a permanent removal of original fabric of an outstanding rated building, and I think that that is a significant alteration, and I don't find the proposed sash to be replicative of what's there. Choitz: I second. Peterson: Because there's a motion on the table to deny, you will need a roll call vote, listing your reasons... Klusczinski: And ayes are denial. Patrick: Before we vote on this, may I interject one thought? I really liked Shawn's comment about if you wanted to just restore the one and then judge that might tell him that he didn't need to do... Klusczinski: But there's already a motion on the table. Patrick: There's already a motion on the table. Riley: Would you repeat that motion, and what we're actually... Zeiger: The motion is fairly simple: deny C ofA... Riley: Deny, you said? Zeiger: Correct, and I stated my reasons, but do I do it again now or when I vote? Peterson: When you vote. Klusczinski: And it was seconded by Martha. We'll begin with roll call then. Motion is to deny Certificate of Appropriateness 2007-0905A. Jerry? Ujdak: I vote for the motion to deny the Certificate. Klusczinski: Could you state your reason to deny? Ujdak: On the basis that it does not follow the established rules. Sporleder: I vote against this proposal because I think that the proposal is much in the keeping with the spirit of the Commission in trying to solve sensible solutions to difficult problems. I think that it's an appropriate and accommodating approach finding a solution to a sticky set of circumstances which we're going to face over and over again. Klusczinski: Thank you. Martha? Choitz: I vote against the Certificate, because I do believe that our rules are perfectly understandable and they will open up wide an unnecessary thing like tonight over and over and over as long as they've done it very simply. You do have to work as a group in a situation of that kind, in a landmark. I could go on forever, and I usually do. Zeiger: My vote is in favor of the motion against the C ofA. I think that this is a permanent removal ofsignificant original fabric- this is a significant change to this outstanding rated building, and I find that the proposed replacement window unit is not matching the configuration of the sash and therefore against the guidelines as adopted. Klusczinski: Tim Klusczinksi, I vote in favor of the motion to deny. This particular C of A proposes an experiment which has indefinite limits, is designed to establish a precedent that conflicts for the guidebooks for the Chapin Park historic district, in my opinion, and also for the Group B Landmark standards. The example for replacement is not in-kind to the existing material, and I'd also echo everything else that Todd spoke to. Patrick: Lynn Patrick, voting in javor of the motion to deny the Certi icate of Appropriateness because it is not consistent with the Chapin Park guidelines. Riley: Linda Riley voting against the proposal to deny. I think that the proposal is trying to work with us, and it really doesn't look that much different, I can't see a problem. 16