HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo construction limits To: Ron Morse, City Administrator
Greg Gappa, Public Services Director
From: Bruce Vang, Building Inspector
Date: Aug. 22, 1997
Subject: Construction at 1385 Rest Point Rd.
List of exhibits: Exhibit A - Resolution #3926
Exhibit B - Engineer's foundation assessment
E�ibit C - Photo 8/22/97
On July 14, 1997 Resolution #3926 was approved granting David and Jodi Rahn
variances for remodeling of and additions to an existing residence at 1385 Rest Point
Rd. Building plans were submitted to the Orono Building Official on July 15, 1997.
In addition to the usual plans, the owners were required by the Building Official to
provide an assessment of the existing foundation to determine if the proposed
additions could be supported. While the existing foundation was sound it would
require some additional work to support the proposed second story. This consisted
of digging under the existing footing to achieve the required 42" frost protection, and
filling the e�sting 8" blocks with concrete. (see attached #2) After discussion staff
agreed that these improvements should not be construed as "foundation replacement",
and on July 30, 1997 a building permit was issued.
As the e�sting house was opened up more and more deficiencies and rotten wood
were discovered. Today only a small portion remains, and most of that is inadequate.
The remaining piece of floor is rotted from being built too close to the dirt, and will
need to be replaced. The remaining wall will have 2x6's added alongside the 2x4's
to increase insulation. The fireplace was found to be cracked and has been taken
down. What remains of the stxucture has been raised to add two courses of concrete
block to the old foundation to increase earth/floor separation. T'hese additional block
are in addition to the engineer's structural requirements.
The question at this time is: Does thi�project still constitute "remodeling and adding
to an existing residence" as approved in the resolution? I would like to see even
more of the existing removed so a year from now we won't have a brand new house
with some rotten lumber buried inside, simply to "retain" some of the "existing
residence". Would this be allowed by the resolution?
Council Options
Option 1. Allow work to proceed under resolution #3926 subject to no further
removals.
Option 2. Allow work to proceed under resolution #3926 with further removals
as deemed necessary by the building official to assure the best possible
end product
Option 3. Find that too much of the "e�sting residence" has already been
removed to proceed under resolution#3926, sending the matter back to
the Planning Commission for consideration of a lot area variance as
required to totally rebuild on an existing lot. There to reconsider:
Option 3a. Allow the building of the residence as already proposed.
Option 3b. Allow the proposed structure to be built but with fewer
variances. No property line setback for example.
Option 3c. Ask to see a totally different proposal. Something built
closer to the street for example.
Option 3d. Declare the lot unbuildable.