December 1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

something serious, and the Commission is going to end up in court. Commissioner Bullene agreed the procedure was wrong, but the concrete had helped to tidy up the alley. President Oxian called for a motion to be made. Commissioner Choitz moved the Commission approve the application for 1035 Riverside Drive as long_ as a letter of protesto� es out to the owners. Commissioner Petrass seconded the motion. The motion passed with 5 in favor and 1. abstaining. Commissioner Choitz asked that the matter of people doing work without a C of A be discussed in Committee and an appropriate reprimand come up with. President Oxian asked what Committee Commissioner Choitz thought was appropriate. She stated the best option seemed to be Standards and Maintenance Committee. Commissioner Hostetler inquired if the Commission is empowered to fine. President Oxian said under the zoning ordinance, the Commission is empowered to fine, but they never had done that. Commissioner Choitz noted many Commissions around ,the country levy fines or take other action against unapproved work in Historic Districts. President Oxian informed Commissioner Van Dalsen that as Co -Chair, she needed to call the meeting. President Oxian stated he would like to attend the meeting as well. Commissioner Bullene noted the importance of making people aware of the consequences, because every time, a C of A is approved after the fact, a precedent .is established. President Oxian informed Commissioner Bull-ene he is on the Standards and Maintenance Committee. 3. 1081 Riverside Drive -- RSD-LHD - laying paving bricks for driveway flange Ms. Anderson read the Staff Report. President Oxian opened the floor to the public. Mr. Talley (owner of 1081 Riverside Drive) supplied the Commission with photographs taken by the contractor the day the "drive was poured and a sample of the brick to be used .in the triangular section. He noted when the excavation was done for the driveway, a brick wall was discovered and was probably a retaining wall or a course of brick even with the soil. Mr. King (owner of 1077 Riverside Drive) noted his objection to the addendum as it was made to the Commission. He stated he and his wife disagreed with the statement that they claimed to own part of the driveway. They merely contended the boundary line was uncertain. He also noted it was not true that they had bodily blocked the project. President Oxian asked how the King-Hendri"ksens could, still dispute the boundaries after a survey had been done by a well know surveyor. Mr. King explained the end points are set, but the in-between sections are in question. He added that he had called Mr. Talley's survey company and they had stated with the survey they had done, the ownership of the shrubs and trees could not be definitively determined, and that a survey with intervening stakes would be necessary. President Oxian stated at this point, the Commission was not giving a COA for the shrubs because no one had filed for a COA for the shrubs. President Oxian inquired why t. -he King-Hendriksens would protest the driveway approach when it: was not even close to the property line. Mr. King replied that the flange comes out toward their property, but there is no matching flange on the other side. He added he did not understand why it had to extend out toward their property. He stated he understood the City has a easement so far up into the property, but it seemed to him that the tip, just by eyeballing it, does cross over the King-Hendri"ksen's property, but if the City had an easement, then that was fine, but he could not understand why the flange had to come toward their property rather than the other way. He said they were not objecting to the flange if the City has an easement there, but that their concern was that when they came home, the forms were already set for the concrete pour, and there was damage to their tree from the first COA which was not an appropriate COA.