04-10-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 10, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. . #05 -3123 STONEWOOD DESIGNBUILD FOR MIKE HART, 1005LINDENLANE — REVIEW OFREMODELING VSREBUILD STATUS, Continued) Gaffron stated there does not currently exist a standard in the code on what constitutes a rebuild versus a remodel and-that this project is approaching°wrebuild in his opinion: White inquired if the applicants complied with all the conditions outlined in the January 31, 2006 letter, would that not lead the applicants to believe that they could proceed forward. Gaffron stated it is the Council's decision to determine whether this a rebuild or a remodel, and that the recommendation from the building inspector is to rebuild the foundation walls rather than repair the walls so the applicants will end up with a better stricture. Brokl pointed out that the Council does not need to approve a variance in this matter and that it is a judgment call on the part of the Council on whether this is a rebuild rather than a remodel. Brokl stated the applicants have indicated that they could repair the foundation without expanding the footprint but that the building inspector has recommended that the walls be replaced. Brokl noted that Staff did not want to approve this project going forward without the Council having input, which is the reason is it on tonight's agenda. Murphy stated the April 6`" memo from the building inspector seems to imply that new information has come to the City's attention and that the building inspector did not understand that the roof, walls, and floor of the existing cabin and possible repairs to the existing foundation was going to happen in the first place. Gaffron stated it was clear from the initial application that the roof was going to be removed at the beginning along with some other remodeling but that it has gone beyond that point due to the deteriorated condition of the foundation. Gustafson stated at every single meeting the property owner has indicated he is okay with leaving the cap and the foundation walls but that the advice of staff has been to replace these things as they have gone along and that they have been led down that path. Gaffron stated it was probably a mutual process of agreeing with the various proposals but that it has gotten to the point where Staff is not comfortable with approving any further changes without the input of the Council. Gaffron recommended that the City obtain a percentage from the property owner in the future on what portion of the house is going to be removed prior to any approval. Brokl stated this is not a precedent setting item because there are no variances being granted. Brokl indicated in his opinion this is an odd situation and that the situation could be avoided in the future. Murphy inquired what the original idea was for keeping this as a remodel. Gaffron stated the initial intent was to do some additions to the existing structure. • Murphy noted these two gentlemen were not involved in the early stages of this project. Murphy commented it seems that the original thought with the application was that it would be a remodel in order • PAGE 8 of 15