Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF ORONO <br /> PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 15,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. <br /> Roger Frommelt, 2805 Casco Point Road, noted he lives next door and that he had a similar catastrophic <br /> event. Frommelt stated he has lived in his house for 48 years and that he is really riding on John Bailey's <br /> coattails when it comes to this project since he does not have the resources to do all the investigating. <br /> Frommelt stated if what John is proposing is approved, he might do what John is doing depending on the <br /> costs. Frommelt noted the slope lasted for at least 50 years and that what Mr. Bailey is proposing is better <br /> than what it was to begin with. Frommelt noted the soil in the area is mostly clay, which might be why it <br /> held for so long. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. <br /> Thiesse commented there is a reason why engineers want to go back further. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in his view the City would be setting a dangerous precedence to allow an applicant to <br /> do a project that clearly needs engineering if they do not require that engineering. Schoenzeit stated in his <br /> view it would be irresponsible and dangerous for the Planning Commission to allow it on this project <br /> since there will likely be other people who want the same waiver. Schoenzeit stated he would not be <br /> comfortable approving it and that in his view the applicant would want to know it is going to survive <br /> 100-year rainfall events before making this type if investment. <br /> Anderson stated a couple of factors apply in this situation. Anderson indicated the slope does have to <br /> match the neighboring properties, and if they used an engineering solution on this one, they would also <br /> have to clear cut and slice the neighboring property's slope off. At some point the City just has to say we <br /> are going to fix it and they cannot impose these kind of costs on a homeowner. <br /> Anderson stated the second factor is the structural integrity of that slope. The reason the slope failed is <br /> because the rain came from the west and it rained really hard and the ground was saturated. Anderson <br /> noted the middle of this property is steeper than anywhere else and the water drains on both sides of those <br /> lots. The reason they failed is that all the water focused in one area, which increased that saturation point. <br /> The purpose of the proposed berm and the surface drains is so no other water can fall on that slope except <br /> for rain. <br /> Anderson noted a 3:1 slope is structural, a 2:1 slope is a substandard engineering slope, and a 1:1 slope is <br /> what sand will stand at. Anderson indicated they are proposing a slope at just over 1:1 and that is only <br /> because they cannot go towards the water. Anderson stated the only reason they have to staircase the <br /> slope is because the subsoil is so saturated that they need to get down to virgin soils in order to compact <br /> it. Anderson indicated the saw tooth method is very common and works very well. <br /> Anderson stated the City has to be careful about requiring an engineering solution that will impose many <br /> hundreds of thousands of dollars because the homeowners will not do anything. <br /> Curtis asked if they have done a drainage area analysis to determine how to size the pipes. <br /> Anderson stated they do have that information. Anderson indicated that area is 500 yards and that the far <br /> right of the property runs forward. Anderson stated there really is not a lot of water but that they want to <br /> make sure the drains are adequate so they are proposing to install two 12-inch pipes. Anderson stated the <br /> real factor is the hydraulic pressure, and that once the soil gets so saturated, it cannot hold and fails. <br /> Page 15 of 23 <br />