Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 19,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart does not have any mechanisms to stay at 18%, 3-to-1 is a pretty common,maintainable slope <br /> and they generally do not suggest grading steeper than that if they want to maintain that. He thinks 3-to-1 <br /> is a reasonable number. <br /> McCutcheon asked Barnhart what was the number for the average walkout. <br /> Barnhart said going off memory it is about 23%or something like that. <br /> Gettman said it will vary depending on the depth of the house. <br /> Barnhart said of course. <br /> Bollis asked what they consider a bluff percentage-wise and he thinks it must be more than 45 degrees. <br /> Barnhart said the bluff is several things;there is a steepness, length,and height. A bluff also has to <br /> terminate at the shoreline;there are several factors that apply and are specifically established by the State <br /> in terms of bluff definition. He clarified they are not proposing to change that and they do not want to <br /> increase it to a really steep level because they are trying to establish buildable minimums. If it is a really <br /> steep slope,for example, 135 Orono Orchard Road is really the only time it has come into play since <br /> Barnhart came here and it had a very pronounced peninsula in the middle and was surrounded by <br /> wetlands. He noted steep slopes came into play there. This change is not going to add a lot to that but <br /> Barnhart thinks 30%is a good suggestion for a maintainable slope. <br /> Chair Ressler said 30%is slightly"flatter"than 33%. He noted that 18%is probably not enough and <br /> based on the feedback of Staff and City Council it is something that has probably been researched well <br /> enough and they must pick a number. He said it seems like a reasonable text amendment in his opinion. <br /> Bollis would be in favor of removing this from the code altogether and not having a percentage towards <br /> dry buildable at all. However,they are clearly picking an arbitrary number here. <br /> Barnhart thinks it is important that they have a dry buildable number—if they do not,for example,the <br /> subdivision they reviewed earlier tonight is in the sewered area and City code requires the gross land area <br /> for the east lot be 2 acres minimum and because it is sewered, it had to be '/2 acre of dry buildable. He <br /> does not know the origin but that is the requirement for sewer parcels. For non-sewer parcels they need a <br /> minimum of 2 acres of dry buildable to site a house and two septic sites. That is why the dry buildable is <br /> important in non-sewered areas. He clarified for sewered area they do not have to worry about the septic <br /> issue and just need a site for the house. That is why he would recommend they still keep a dry buildable <br /> minimum,because removing that introduces a lot more analysis that will be necessary to be sure they are <br /> not opening up Pandora's box. <br /> Bollis said in that case the septic would be the key to the whole thing and there would be no reason for <br /> this calculation. If they can't fit a septic there,they would not be able to subdivide it and that would be <br /> dictated by the steepness of the lot. He feels like this is just going way above and beyond and clarified he <br /> has always been against the 18%as it made no sense because they were creating bigger slopes to create <br /> walkouts than the 18%and that is clearly buildable. <br /> Chair Ressler noted this is a step in the right direction. <br /> Page 27 of 28 <br />