Laserfiche WebLink
4. 1071 Riverside Drive --Local Historic District <br />Mr,. Pa$t r descri ed this ho se as a . 1911 <br />Prairie -influenced oursquare douse wit�i a <br />contributing garage. The owner proposed to: <br />--replace a concrete walk from house to garage <br />in-kind <br />--install a 15' wide rectangular concrete patio <br />in the rear of the house, running from fence to <br />fence, with 3' bordering flower beds on each <br />side. <br />Mr. Pastor said Mr. Murphy, the owner, had <br />signed a COA application specifying that the <br />replacement walk would replicate the dimension <br />and the materials of the existing walk. The <br />plans Mr. Murphy had submitted, however, <br />indicated a walk of different form and <br />dimensions. <br />Mr. Oxian said that, because these particular <br />owners had already several times violated COA <br />procedures, he thought it unwise to approve any <br />of their proposals in absentia and without clear <br />specifications. He said he, personally, would <br />vote against any of their proposals unless they <br />appeared at the meeting and offered a <br />fully -detailed account of the plan, in writing. <br />Further, to approve any more proposals might <br />simply complicate existing legal problems between <br />the Commission and these owners. <br />Mrs. Choitz moved to table the proposal. Mrs. <br />Sporleder asked whether the HPC could table the <br />proposal and also require the owner to furnish <br />other, particular items of information. Mr. <br />Oxian said such stipulations were permissible. <br />Mr. Herendeen said the Commission should require <br />the submission of a clearer plan. Mrs. Sporleder <br />said the plan should clearly show that the walk <br />would be replaced in-kind. The owner should also <br />be told that the existing plans appeared to <br />violate the standards. <br />Mr. Holycross said the owner had already been <br />informed of the plan's deficiencies. <br />Mrs. DeRose said she had that day received a <br />letter from Ann Manion announcing the sale of <br />1071 Riverside. The Commission might therefore <br />have to deal with a new owner. Ms. Manion's <br />letter had not identified the new owner. <br />Mrs. DeRose further stated that, since the <br />proposal might not have originated from the <br />house's current owners, it might therefore be <br />invalid. <br />Mr. Eide moved to table the proposal <br />indefinitely. Mrs. SDorleder seconded the <br />motion. stioulatinq that clearer Dlans and better <br />information be furnished. <br />Mr. Oxian identified two reasons for tabling <br />the proposal: <br />--the identity of the current owner wasn't known <br />--the proposal had not been properly made. <br />5. 1091 Riverside Drive --Local Historic District <br />5 <br />