Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3042 Pillar Homes, Continued) Shennack stated two-foot floor joists were used. Jurgens noted the upper garage was proposed at 943.5' 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 differently on this residence that was not shown on the first survey but was depicted on the submitted plan was on the three sides where the grade was identical, the walls were poured at a nine-foot height and two-foot floor trusses were set on top. Shem1ack indicated the portion facing the courtyard area was actually done with what's called a top cord hanging truss, which means that the wall was poured 18 inches to two feet higher and the truss hangs on top of it. Shermack stated he constructed this house identical to the plans that were submitted to the City. Shennack stated because of the top cord hanging trusses, the grade in the courtyard area is automatically higher. She1mack stated his attention was again focused on the bottom walkout level to ensure that there was no water seepage into the house. Ralm stated if the house has been constructed at the approved elevations and per the approved plan, water should not come into the basement. Rahn stated the main issue he has is the visual impact of the neighbors and not the drainage. Rahn stated in his view it looks like there is excessive fill on the street side and not a smooth transition to the home. Rahn stated in his opinion the drainage issues can be resolved. Kempf inquired whether some of the fill is to accommodate the parking circle. She1mack stated that it is. Leslie questioned the as-built retaining wall abutting the pool. Leslie noted the grading plan does not depict a retaining wall. Leslie stated it appears that the drainage is being pushed towards the neighbor to the north and creates an issue with runoff. Leslie commented he is more concerned about the drainage issues than the visual impact. Shem1ack stated the retaining wall is approximately two feet high and is constructed with interlocking block to make it narrow and visibly unobtrusive as possible. Sherrnack indicated Staff suggested building a retaining wall in this area as well as construction of a swale with the drain tile and rock alongside the pool. Shermack stated the retaining wall is designed to help direct the water down the wall and into the drain tile. Shennack noted Staff recommended the majority of work constructed in the pool area. Leslie inquired whether the purpose of the block wall is to catch drainage from the pool deck. Shem1ack stated the block wall is a transition from the pool to another area. PAGE 10