Subject: Re: First Properties - Maintenance Request - Vanguard Lofts
From: Michael E. Rutkowski (mr@condomanagement.com)
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 13:52:22 CST
Just some history...
The "gate within a gate" was suggested many years ago. What is there now
really couldn't be retrofitted to accomodate this scenario, so a complete
redesign and refabrication was necessary. I went through the files to see
if I still had the proposal but do not. (I think this was about 5 years
ago).
The main objection at the time was cost (it was over $10,000 for the entire
project).
Michael E. Rutkowski
Principal
First Properties, LLC
Phone: 312.829.8900
Fax: 312.829.8950
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mary Deskovich" <mdeskovich@yahoo.com>
To: <vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: First Properties - Maintenance Request - Vanguard Lofts
> That gate has been the subject of discusion at meetings for years. It is
recognized that it gets a lot of use. No one ever before suggested a "gate
within the gate" before. Has anyone ever seen that done?
> I trust you are NOT suggesting that people with dogs be allowed to use the
front elevator, stairs and lobby? We have had many "wet accidents" in the
rear elevator, and in the rear lobby. Then there is the infamous recent
"bulk accident" in the front lobby. These are all proof of something
everyone knows-dogs DO have accidents. And since a lot of them don't get
cleaned up by the being responsible (the PERSON, not the DOG) we should not
allow dogs in the front of the building. I personally would like to throttle
people when I see them allowing their pets to pee or poop on our grass, but
since it's on city property, there is nothing that can be done. I know that
the grass is not in the best of shape, but the pee doesn't help and every
once in awhile poop sits there too and dog crap is NOT good fertilizer. In
addition, in wet, snowy weather the dogs get dirty outside and track that
dirt when they come back inside. We should try to keep that to the back of
the building.
> Also, there are people who do not wish to share an elevator with pets for
a variety of reasons. They are afraid of them, they don't like them, or the
might have allergies. Those people need to know that the front elevator is
"safe" for them.
> The new carpet looks great (check out the top floors) and we need to keep
as much of it in as good shape as possible. The pets have to use the
hallways. There is no way around that. However, we can keep the lobby area
looking its best. That's the building's first impression. Recent postings
have claimed that people are ashamed of the way the carpet looked, one owner
so much so that she was putting off selling her unit until it was replaced.
We need to consider what can be done to keep the new carpet looking good for
as long as possible. I think keeping dogs off of it is one part of the
solution.
> And, while I am on the subject of the new carpet, we all have to be
responsible for its maintenance. We do not have to regularly vacuum the
carpets, that is Julio's job. However, if something spills, leaks out of our
garbage bags as we take them to the chutes, or gets tracked on the carpet
and we are responsible for it, we do have an obligation to clean that up. It
should not wait for Julio, but be cleaned by the person responsible
immediately.
>
> Mary
>
> thelen8830@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In regards to this gate, It may be the amount of use put on this gate that
is also a problem. If people in the building who owned dogs were allowed to
access the whole building with their pets this problem would be less severe.
Simple equation the more you use something the more times it will break.
Since there is not a normal fence You can just exit (you being a dog owner)
every time you walk your pet there is that fence at work. So do the math
(estimate) 30 dogs in the building 3 times a day they go out that is a total
of 90 times a day that gate has to be used. So think of some alternatives
than just fixing the gate.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael E. Rutkowski
> To: vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu; Loretta Wheeler ;
christian.a.lattimer@jpmchase.com
> Cc: Mary Deskovich ; Thomas Kikta ; Derek Lane ; Justin Pivec
> Sent: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:35:17 -0600
> Subject: Re: First Properties - Maintenance Request - Vanguard Lofts
>
>
> Pro-Line will be out tomorrow.
>
> Michael E. Rutkowski
> Principal
> First Properties, LLC
> Phone: 312.829.8900
> Fax: 312.829.8950
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: christian.a.lattimer@jpmchase.com
> To: vanguard-talk@venus.soci.niu.edu ; Michael Rutkowski ; Loretta Wheeler
> Cc: Mary Deskovich ; Thomas Kikta ; Derek Lane ; Justin Pivec
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:00 PM
> Subject: First Properties - Maintenance Request - Vanguard Lofts
>
>
>
> First Properties Maintenance Request for Vanguard Lofts
>
> The side access security gate (Throop Street) to the visitor parking
behind
> the building is in poor condition. The control arm for the security gate
is
> grinding against the metal housing of the control box. This is due to a
poor
> design of the control arm and closure mechanism for the gate.
>
> This maintenance issues was called in to First Properties in the
July/August
> time frame. Maintenance was dispatched to fix the problem and their
solution
> was to put grease on top of the control box to minimize the friction
between the
> control arm and the metal enclosure. This was a somewhat effective short
term
> solution until the grease wore off. It lasted for about a week until the
gate
> started making noise again. The root cause of the failure was never
addressed.
> The control arm is bent down. It should not be grinding against the metal
> housing of the gate control unit.
>
> Might I offer up a couple more permanent solutions to this on going
> maintenance problem:
>
> - Put a busing on the control arm to raise it to the proper height so
there
> is clearance between the control arm and the metal enclosure.
> - Install a 1/4 inch thick sheet of teflon on the top corner of the metal
> enclosure to reduce friction between the control arm and metal enclosure.
>
> These are very simple and inexpensive solutions that will increase the
> longevity of the control unit, decrease the number of malfunctions with
the
> gate, decrease the amount of maintenance calls to First Properties, and
best of
> all... increase the overall security of the Vanguard Lofts by having a
gate that
> doesn't routinely malfunction.
>
> Please find attached to this email pictures of the gate control unit. The
> pictures clearly show the wear and tear on the top corner of the enclosure
from
> direct metal on metal contact. As the control arm continues to grind on
the
> metal enclosure, unnecessary stress is placed on the control unit that
will
> ultimately lead to another failure of the gate.
>
> Best regards,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 19 2006 - 16:56:08 CST