119 LaPorte Avenue_COA 2021-0205

Home Browse Search

3 From: Alexis Torrance <alexis.torrance@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 1:32 PM To: Adam Toering <atoering@southbendin.gov> Cc: Elicia Feasel <efeasel@southbendin.gov>; Ross Van Overberghe <rvoverber@southbendin.gov> Subject: Re: 119 La Porte Avenue ‐ COA Thanks, Adam, for clarifying a few things. I look forward to getting my hands on the Hanson volume which looks great. It will help for other elements of the house: the windows, though, even in a restored state (which is impossible in the case of those already replaced) would be too costly and time‐consuming a project, and would not produce a livable outcome given the house's location. I do understand, though, and appreciate, your prioritization of repair and rehabilitation of original material where feasible. To your points: 1) I don't specifically remember the phrase "beyond repair" which is kind of hard to define. My worry is that the way you use and describe it incentivizes the total neglect of the windows so that even the salvageable elements (like the interior and exterior trim) should be put at risk of rot and degradation before a recommendation for the replacement of what is in fact already an amalgam of some original and some replacement windows in poor condition. 2) You mention "original storms." I haven't seen evidence that any of our storm windows are original. I'd like to note regarding the windows (which might be in your report), that during the site visit an attempt was made to open only one window, a window which appeared to be in functional condition (e.g. newer ropes installed): it opened for Adam but would not close. This is not simply a functionality issue for us but a safety issue. Ross eventually had to intervene to close it. And of all the older windows this is the window that appears to be in the best shape! To wave all this off as "maintenance issues" strikes my wife and me as an understatement. 3) Regarding sound insulation, we realize there's no full "fix" out there. Sound gets through walls too, after all, not just windows (including incidentally, uninsulated weight wells/pockets). The issue is improvement. The data and evidence all indicate that the replacement window inserts we've proposed will absolutely bring about an improvement to sound abatement over the potentially costlier and certainly more time‐consuming alternative of repairing the existing windows (some of which, of course, are already replacements that are poorly installed and/or insulated). The same goes, of course, for energy efficiency. Having looked through some of the past meeting minutes, I do have a quick query. It looks as though our proposed project falls under category B of the Commission's remit, i.e. "Treatment," rather than category C ("Renovation and Additions") since "renovation" is described as the "modification of a structure," whereas "treatment" is defined as "any change of surface materials that will not alter the style or original form. Such improvements include re ‐roofing, glazing, or landscaping lawns and may involve a change that can potentially enhance or detract from the character of the landmark." I just want to confirm that since our proposed change of surface materials will not alter the style or original form (and will, we claim, enhance the character of the landmark), it will be considered under this category B rubric. It's helpful for me to know this, as I've been having trouble working out exactly what explicit criteria govern these decision‐ making processes. We want to be as prepared as we can be for the meeting!