Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING SP.i'TEMBER 12, 1988 <br />ZONING FILE i1275-DOUGLAS JOHNSON CONTINUED <br />setback for the construction of a house. At that time, it was <br />indicated that the foundation would remain as it was and that the <br />construction would be merely an addition to the existing house. <br />The Engineer's direction was that the house be lifted and the top <br />course of block on the outside existing and inside gearing walls <br />be removed. The foundation could then be strengthened by placing <br />a #5 vertical rebar every 16". It was assumed that there were <br />adequate footings underneath the block wall. The variances were <br />granted upon the premise that the foundation was not to be <br />removed, only strengthened. <br />During the week of September 5th, the work began on the <br />site. The house had been totally removed, and only a small <br />portion of the f .-.!indation remaineu,. The question nov before the <br />Council is whether the proposed house must be relocated to meet <br />"he required setbacks. It had been determined by the City's <br />Puilding Inspector that the footings under the remaining <br />.':cundation were ncnexistent and therefore could not support a new <br />st:uct:ure. Staff is recommending that the house be moved back to <br />comply with the setbacks. However, the applicants have set the <br />forms for the new footings on the property, but they have not yet <br />bear. poured. <br />Mr. Johnson reiterated Bernhardson's explanation of the <br />situation. He felt that he had complied with the City's <br />directives and that the stop -work order was unnecessary. Mr. <br />Johnson referred to the Planning Commission Minutes for the June <br />6, 1988 Meeting. The paragraphs referred to Chairman Kelley's <br />inquiries and comments rep-arding the replacement of the existing <br />foundation. The motion f. approval of this item was conditioned <br />upon the house being moved to meet setbacks should the foundation <br />require removal. Mr. Johnson stated that be would not have <br />proceeded to the Council without the Engineer's a opz ova 1 or <br />recommendations. <br />Mr. Johnson apprised the Council of his proposal which <br />included the addition of foundation in one location and the <br />removal of a portion of foundation .in another location. However, <br />an additional portion of the existing foundation needed <br />replacement because it cracked while the structure was being <br />removed. The entire front portion needed a new 42" foundation to <br />support the structure due to a lack of adequate footings. The <br />structural engineer Mr. Johnson hired was referred by the City. <br />Mr. Johnson made reference to paragraph ##5 in Mr. Zimn.iewicz's <br />letter dated June 29, 1988. This paragraph recommended that a 6' <br />to 8" cap be poured on top of the outside and inside bearing <br />walls. The engineer also recommended adding a 4" wall to the <br />existing 8" ,all and fill all voids in the existing walls. There <br />were only two options available to accomplish the recommendations <br />by the engineer. one would be to lift the rouse and replace the <br />block or tear off the existing and replace it with adequate <br />support for the proposed structure. <br />11 <br />