04-23-2007 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 23, 2007 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. 4. #06 -3245 MICHAEL AND KAREN MANEY,3605 NORTH SHORE DRIVE — REVIEW STATUS OF REMODEL PROJECT Michael Maney, Applicant, and Michael Sharratt, Architect, were present. Turner stated on January 22, 2007, Council approved a number of variances to allow the addition of a second story and attached garage to the existing house. On April 2, 2007, the contractor applied for a building permit for the project. Upon reviewing•the permit application, Planning Staff determined that what was proposed would constitute a rebuild rather than an addition. Staff then found information in the file suggesting the house was constructed on pilings. Council consideration was delayed while this was investigated to determine if any of the foundation could be reused. Turner indicated this is a similar situation that the Council heard in early March where a second story addition had turned into: a rebuild. In this situation, complete plans were provided and it was easy to determine that it was a rebuild. The applicants are proposing to reuse the pilings and the block foundation and add additional pilings without disturbing the existing block. The applicants would like to add another course of block to raise the floor level so they are able to meet the six inch of separation requirement between earth and untreated lumber. A totally new structure would be constructed on top of the block, with the garage being added. The applicants would construct the same structure as was approved but the• entire structure would be rebuilt 'except for the foundation. • It is Staff's opinion that the project as now proposed is not in compliance with the approved variances. Council should determine whether it would have approved the variances if the proposal had been presented as s -a rebuild rather than an addition. Typically a new house is expected to require fewer variances than an addition. Due to the size of the property, a new house would require street and side setback variances as well as hardcover variances. Normally a new house is not granted a structural lot coverage variance. The existing house has 1,509 square feet and the attached garage would add another 624 square feet. The wing wall and an extended overhang on the lakeside would add another 33 feet square feet. The additional structural coverage was approved based on the project being the replacement of a detached garage with an attached garage. The garage was allowed to be larger than minimum to accommodate storage and mechanical equipment that would normally be in the basement. The fact that about 200 square feet of the existing house was to be converted to open porch was also a consideration in the structural coverage variance. White noted the existing house is located 44 feet from the lakeshore rather than 75 feet as required and that this information completely changes the application. Rahn questioned why the structural coverage was approved at 22.9 percent. Turner stated early on in the application process the applicants had taken their lot area all the way up to the right -of -way of North Shore Drive and it was later determined that they needed to exclude what was considered to be a private road. This changed their numbers half way through the process. Turner stated the additional structural coverage consisted of a garage and overhang as well as a wing wall that • was considered structural. PAGE 2