10-13-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 22, 2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (6. #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAITIEEN MlUPHY, 3135 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Commission voted 4-1, consistent with stafTs recommendation, for denial of the hardcover request in exchange for a 32 s.f landing allowed by code and an additional 20 s.f allowance for the lock box. Based on City Council direction, Waataja noted that the applicants have consulted with an engineenng firm, BKBM, whose comments were somewhat inconclusive and included in the packet, as well as. City Engineer Kellogg ’s response. Sansevere asked the applicants if they had pursued additional testing. Ms. Murphy explained that, it seemed to her, that no one wished to make a ruling on this matter and lay their reputation on the line just in case they were incorrect and the retaining wall structure deteriorates. While she admitted that they could continue to pursue testing and spending money to jump through the ‘hoops ’, she believed they were in an awkward position, since no one would like to accept liability for their ruling. She indicated that they were hardpressed to do more, and spend more, at this juncture if everyone is hesitant to rule on the wall and deck system. Murphy concurred, stating that he gleaned the same perspective from the letter that no one wants to take any blame on any ruling they might make if they are wrong; therefore, they are hesitant to say much at all. Sansevere stated tliat he would prefer to sec the decking remain as opposed to the concrete wall across the front of the property. He asked if the City would need a stronger basis to approve the application or whether this would be precedent semng. Gaffron maintained that total rebuilds give the City an opportunity' to bring properties into compliance, and pointed out that the concrete wall could be obscured with landscaping and other plantings. Ms. Murphy indicated that their ongmal intent was to remodel the home; however, after conversations wnth City staff it became clear that our project would be reviewed as a rebuild and have strived to meet alt of the Csty^’s requirements, one of w hich may force them to remove a 100 year old oak tree on the site. As It was noted by BKBM the wall was cracked in spots, Sansevere indicated that he was not convinced the decking wasn't pro\’iding a certain degree of stability to the slope and retaining wall. While he had not seen the site himself, Kellogg had three concerns w'lth regard to the letter submitted by BKBM. First, the letter stated that since the wall had recently been completely covered by rough-sawn fencing, BKBM admitted that a complete renew- was impossible; second. BKBM acknowledged that originally the retaining wall was not designed to require the supplemental bracing provided by the deck; and third, no physical testing was performed. Ms Murphy offered to uke Mr. Kellogg to the site to renew the deck and wall system for him in an effort to obtain an opinion of some kmd. She mamtained that the physical testing w ould be difficult, since the wood is screwed/anchored right to the retaining wall and removal of the wood alone might adversely impact the wall altogether. Page 4 of 16