Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />ORONO CITY C <br />Monday, <br />7:00 o' <br />( #06 -3245 Michael and Karen Maney, <br />Turner stated Staff did not have a demolition plan <br />later found to not be based on an actual site visit t <br />3 OF THE <br />UNCIL MEETING <br />)ri123, 2007 <br />ock p.m. <br />d that the letter from the structural engineer was <br />written on a theoretical basis. <br />Rahn stated in his opinion, if all the wood is going" to be replaced, this application should start over <br />because it would have been looked at in a different light. <br />Murphy stated based on the amount of work being'proposed, he is in agreement with Council Member <br />Rahn and that this application should go back to the Planning Commission. <br />White stated it is clear this is a rebuild rather than'a remodeling project. <br />Bremer stated the difference between this and the • <br />into consideration that Staff had issued the buildin <br />having been submitted. Bremer stated this applica <br />the Council is being put in a position of trying to c <br />had it been presented as a rebuild in the first place <br />McMillan stated any time you are dealing with t3 <br />variables and that the City needs to take a firmer <br />this lot is a hardship lot and that she has some do <br />Maney distributed a memorandum to the Council <br />prepared to move forward with the plan that has b <br />intention to determine the exact condition of the f <br />commented it is sometimes difficult to anticipate <br />that based upon some limited excavation that has <br />was constructed on pilings and that there are poor <br />Maney stated they are not proposing to end up N <br />to replace the existing walls and floor with new <br />Sharratt stated they did have a number of meeting <br />meetings that they wanted to utilize the existing fc <br />wanted to retain the existing first floor walls and t <br />for when the project constitutes a rebuild versus a <br />the existing walls and foundation and simply re -ei <br />Maney noted they have not started any demolition <br />Sharratt stated they completed their floor plans wi <br />Sharratt noted their application process has taken <br />property did not occur until January. A limited ai <br />P <br />'alters Port Lane property is that the Council took <br />permit without all the appropriate documentation <br />on is like an after - the -fact variance request in that <br />cide how they would have dealt with this situation <br />to utilize old foundations, there are a lot of <br />ion on these type of projects. McMillan stated <br />about how much would be able to be changed. <br />;arding his application. Maney stated they are <br />i approved by the Council and that it was their <br />ldation prior to commencing the project. Maney <br />the variables that go with a remodeling project and <br />;n done on the site, it was determined that the house <br />ils on the site. <br />anything different from their approved house except <br />Is and floor. <br />with Staff and it was discussed during those <br />mdation. Staff had asked whether the owners really <br />ere was no mention of a percentage being mentioned <br />emodel. Sharratt stated if necessary, they will leave <br />.orce them to support the addition. <br />this time. <br />i the idea that the first floor walls would be replaced. <br />considerable amount of time and the closing on the <br />ount of excavation on the site was done as soon as <br />