Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 23, 2007 • <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />( #06 -3245 Michael and Karen Maney, Continued) <br />they were notified that the house was constructed on pilings. There is no cracking or deterioration of <br />the foundation walls. <br />Sharratt submitted a copy of the engineer's report to Staff, noting that the opinion of the structural <br />engineer is that the foundation is in good condition and is adequate to support a one -story structure. The <br />existing foundation would need to be re- enforced to support a second story. The house has been <br />designed to look like a story and a half but would, in fact, be a two -story home. <br />Sharratt stated they have tried hard to respect the ordinances of the City during this process and that they <br />were not made aware of the distinction between a remodel and a rebuild. The existing piling system has <br />a value of fifty to sixty thousand dollars and if the foundation was not in good condition, he would have <br />recommended to the applicant that the foundation be replaced. <br />Sharratt noted this project significantly reduces hardcover from what currently exists, reduces the first <br />floor footprint of occupied building mass, and results in a structure that is significantly below the <br />maximum height dimension, eliminates the non - conforming side yard setback of the existing garage and <br />relocates the face of the new garage over two feet south to widen the private drive to facilitate <br />emergency access. • <br />Sharratt stated he is unsure that submitting a new application would accomplish much over what has <br />already been proposed with this plan. Sharratt indicated Staff was fully informed on what they were <br />proposing on this site from the beginning. <br />Murphy noted Staff's report states the following: "Without removing the block walls, additional pilings <br />would be added to support the weight of the second story. A course of block would be added to make it <br />easier to provide the required separate between earth and untreated wood. The additional block would <br />partially compensate for the height lost in the crawl space because its floor must be raised a foot to <br />comply with floodplain regulations." Murphy inquired whether the floor would be removed. <br />Sharratt stated the floor would be removed. <br />Murphy pointed out the only thing left would be the perimeter of the foundation. <br />Sharratt stated the piling system, the grade.beam, and the block would remain, which is similar to what <br />happened on Walters Port. Sharratt stated they were not aware of the City's distinction between a <br />rebuild and a remodel project. <br />Sharratt stated variances are based on working plans rather than completed building plans due to the <br />expense that his clients would incur by having to do completed building plans twice. Sharratt stated <br />they determined removal of the first floor walls would result in a better constructed house and that the <br />additional course of block would help resolve the drainage problem near the house. Sharratt stated if the <br />additional block is not added, they would install drain tile but that the house would sit lower. If the City • <br />PAGE 4 <br />