11-15-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIM TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mo>da>. October 18.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (O04->042 Pillar Homev Continued) Shenmek staled two-foot floor joists were used. Jurgens noted the upper garage was proposed at 943 S* and it is clearly depicted at 945 5 and perhaps 946* according to the contours. Jurgens inquired why the garage is higher than what was proposed ShermacK stated one of the things that was done ditTctcnily on this residence that was not shown on the first sursey but was depicted on the submitted plan was on the three sides where the grade was idv.Mtcal. the walls were poured at a ninc-foot heiglii and two-foot floor trusses were set on top She..-a- k indicated the portion facing the courtyard area was actually done with what's called a top cord h.^. . mg truss, which means that the wall was p«iured IS 'nehes to two feel higher and the truss hangs ’ ’op of it Shemuck stated he constructed this house identical to the plans that were submiUiJ to the City. Shermack stated because of the top cord hanging trusses, the grade in the courty ard area is automatically higher. Shermack stated his attention wv . again focused on the bottom walkout level to ensure that there was no water seepage into the house. Rahn stated if the house has been constiticlcd at the approved elevations and per the approved plan, w ater should not come into the basement Rahn stated the mam issue he has is the visual impact of the neighbors and not the drainage. Rahn stated in his view it U>oks like there is cvccssixe fill on the street side and not a smooth transition to the home Rahn staled m his opinion the drainage issues can be resolved. Kempf inquired whether some of the fill is to accommodate the parking circle Shermack staled that it is. Leslie questioned the as-built retaining wall abutting the ps>o|. I.cslic noted the grading plan docs not depict a retaining wall. Leslie stated it appears that the drainage i.s being pushed towards the ncighKir to the north and creates an issue w ith runolT. Leslie commented he is more concerned about the drainage issues than the visual impact. Shermack stated the retaining wall is approximately two feet high and is constructed with interlocking block to make it narrow- and visibly unobtrusive as possible Shermack indicated Staff suggested building a retaining wall in this area as well as con>truciion of a swale with the dram tile and rock alongside the pool. Shemuck stated the retaining wall is designed to help direct the water dow-n the w all and into the dram tile. Shemuck noted Staff recommended the nujority of work constructed m the pool area. Leslie inquired whether the purpose of the block wall is to catch drainage from the pool deck Shemuck stated the block wall is a transition from the pool to another area. PAGE 10