Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 12, 2007 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> <br />PAGE 19 <br />(#06-3238 Vogue ICF Homes, Continued) <br />Bremer stated in her opinion if the Council had known that the foundation needed to be replaced, the <br />Council would have looked at this project completely different and that they now need to decide whether <br />they would have allowed this project to proceed forward with the foundation being replaced. Bremer <br />stated in her view this lot is a hardship lot and that there might not be a better location for the house. <br />Bremer stated from her perspective she probably would not have required the house to be relocated. <br />White stated one of the issues is that a permit was issued without the input from the structural engineer <br />and that this situation is unfortunate. White stated there can be isolated spots of bad soil on lots that are <br />not anticipated even if soil borings are completed. White noted the house is dramatically different from <br />what existed but that he also probably would not have required the house to be relocated. <br />Murphy noted the applicant has indicated when this project is completely finished, he will have <br />constructed the house that was approved. Murphy stated if the demolition had not occurred and the <br />foundation replaced, the house that would have been built could have tumbled into the lake and that he <br />has trouble finding fault with replacing the foundation. Murphy stated the issue he has is whether the <br />applicant or homeowners knew about the problem with the foundation prior to the work commencing. <br />Murphy concurred that there does not appear to be a better location for the house but that it is likely he <br />would not have approved the size of the structure. <br />Vogstrom commented the owners will not be in town until tomorrow evening. <br />McMillan stated it is likely the Council would not have approved the application as depicted given the <br />amount of work that has now been completed, especially given the language in the resolution that states <br />the existing exterior walls would remain. McMillan stated she always has concerns about constructing a <br />second story on top of a structure that has mold problems. <br />Vogstrom stated the second story was not the problem but rather the problem with the one footing and the <br />lack of frost protection. <br />McMillan stated in her view the exterior walls were an issue and that they did not appear in the pictures to <br />be something that should have been retained. <br />Vogstrom stated he has constructed homes for most of his life and that he certainly has learned from this <br />experience. Vogstrom stated this situation is unfortunate the way it has worked out and that he is willing <br />to take a lot of the blame for what happened. Vogstrom stated he tends to only do new construction and <br />usually does not have to deal with these types of issues. <br />White noted Staff in the future will need to assume that a major addition, especially second story <br />additions, will be a rebuild unless the applicant provides structural plans that show the existing foundation <br />and walls are capable of supporting the addition without replacement or major modification and that Staff <br />will no longer issue permits without structural plans when structural plans are required. <br />Bremer moved on Application #06-3238, Vogue ICF Homes, 2709 Walters Port Lane, to allow the <br />applicant to proceed with the work outlined within the previous approval, noting that the exterior <br />walls have already been modified, and to direct Staff to prepare a resolution consistent with the <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/26/07 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 03/12/07 [Page 5 of 19]