My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
03-16-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2016 9:21:06 AM
Creation date
4/6/2015 12:55:58 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
196
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, February 17, 2015 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 9 of 11 <br /> <br /> <br />Thiesse asked what would happen if a new development is graded and silt fencing is erected but the lots <br />do not sell for six to seven years. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the City would still have an escrow at that point. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted turf would need to be established under the language. <br /> <br />Curtis stated it would not necessarily need to be turf as long as it is stabilized with some type of <br />vegetation to the point where there will not be a sediment or erosion issue. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated he is questioning it because the City is making the homeowner do it but not the developer. <br /> <br />Lemke asked if he is questioning the time frame for the temporary fencing. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated as soon as a certificate of occupancy is issued, the temporary fencing would need to be <br />removed, but part of the City’s laws regarding fences is also designed to make the City look nice and that <br />if a developer is not able to sell the lots, the temporary fencing may remain for years. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if the developer will be required to establish some type of vegetation. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated to his understanding the developer has a year. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated there should be some type of trigger to the City alerting them to the fact that the <br />temporary fencing has remained for so long. Landgraver stated in his view there should perhaps be some <br />type of time limit for the temporary fencing, but that he is not sure it should be included in this section of <br />the Code. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated Item No. 5 could be included relating just to the developer. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if the soil is not worked on, typically after a 14-day period some form of vegetation starts to <br />grow. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated his concern is that they will have to rip it out and then put it back in after they are done <br />working on the house. <br /> <br />Curtis stated one of the reasons for the temporary fencing regulations is to prevent someone from <br />installing a snow fence and leaving it there indefinitely. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Chapter 79 of the Code talks about site erosion control, and there is an inspection and <br />maintenance section that says the best management practices have to be inspected once every seven days <br />on exposed soil areas, within 24 hours after a rain, etc. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the language reads that final approval cannot be given until all work, including installation <br />of all drainage facilities and protective devices, have been completed and final stabilization has occurred. <br />Gaffron stated the City does have a control that says the temporary fencing must be removed in Chapter <br />79. <br /> <br />Item #01 - CC Agenda - 03/16/2015 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 02/17/2015 <br />[Page 9 of 11]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.