Laserfiche WebLink
seconded the motion. <br />No further discussion. <br />Motion approved unanimously. <br />3. Legal <br />a. Legal Update <br />Mr. Holycross presented a Staff Report updating the various <br />legal issues currently being dealt with: <br />A. 805 Arch Avenue: owners were notified by the City Attorney <br />that they would be subject to litigation if they did not <br />comply with HPC direction to replace the rear entry canopy <br />removed without a GOA in 1991. A staff visit by the Director <br />showed that work had begun; staff felt that the issue was <br />moving toward cooperation and resolution. <br />B. 1071 Riverside Drive: a complaint was filed in Superior <br />Court on 9-29-92 against the owner of this property asking <br />for compliance with HPC directives concerning various COA <br />matters. <br />C. 619 Edawater: Staff had received a call from the <br />Edgewater District concerning a COA at this property from <br />1984 that granted permission to construct a retaining wall <br />along the river in front of the property; the plan included a <br />safety rail that had yet to be constructed. Some neighbors <br />were concerned about safety due to the lack of rails on the <br />wall. <br />Staff research showed that no violation existed in relation <br />to the wall at this time. Staff recommended that the HPC drop <br />the matter since there were presently no legal or safety <br />violations in connection with the wall and to avoid unneeded <br />bad publicity. <br />Mr. Oxian suggested that the owner should be required to <br />comply with the original COA in order that a precedent not be <br />set. He explained that he was "totally against dropping" the <br />matter; "others in the neighborhood would follow his <br />example." <br />Aladean DeRose suggested that the original plan was <br />voluntary; she thought that the matter was therefore optional <br />and not a requirement of the HPC. She then suggested that the <br />complaining party be contacted to fully explain the HPC's <br />opinion that this was not a requirement of the COA and does <br />not constitute a violation. This would show that the HPC was <br />not "backing down" but was following procedure. <br />Mr. Oxian explained the HPC had asked the owner to comply <br />with the original proposal to ensure that the HPC would not <br />be liable in the future for safety mishaps. <br />6 <br />