Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPI EMBEK 16,1996 <br />(#9 - #2177 Bob Melamed - Continued) <br />Regard’mg the 25' side setback, Norby said it currently is planned at 27' and originally at: <br />32'. The turnaround was at a 90 degree angle but has been changed to save three <br />additional trees There may possibly be additional deciduous trees planted in the area <br />Norbv noted the extensive under«rov\th of smaller trees w hich adds to the denseness of <br />the wooded property. <br />When asked by Schroeder how close the neighboring house wus, Melamed said the <br />neighboring house was located more to the east on their lot with the driveway to the west. <br />Norby added that the neighboring lot was also quite wooded Mabusth said the setback <br />would be up to negotiations with the neighbor, the Simonds Norby said the curved <br />driveway was a result of tree placement A 20" basswood in front would be lost if the <br />garage and driveway were to be turned more tow ards the front of the house Without the <br />encroachment, the applicant said there w ould be a wide swath of trees cut out of original <br />virgin forest The smaller growth of trees on the property are located to the east. It was <br />then noted that the av erage setback is 13’ to the side of the lot w ith the closest at 6'. <br />Stoddard asked how much would be gained if the back out w as removed. Melamed and <br />Norby said a car could not get out of the garage in that scenario. Mabusth added that the <br />apron could be moved more to the east <br />Lindquist asked that Staff review the setback with the Simonds <br />Mabusth also noted that she would like to have the City Engineer review the plan to see if <br />the back out could be brought further east to pull it further away from the side lot line. <br />Smith asked instead of a straight approach, front load, if a slight turn could be done to get <br />around the tree vithout getting into the turn around area Norby said the 14' driveway <br />with a front load of 30' narrows down to 20'. Mabusth commented that there would still <br />be a need for a back-up aica. Norby noted that trees would still be lost Smith said that <br />would not occur further up Melamed said the amended plan calls for removal of only one <br />tree Smith agreed adding that it was also misleading in that many were lost with the <br />driveway. Norby said although the solution would physically work, they were also <br />attempting to eliminate the sight of vehicles and questioned if the covenants would be met. <br />Smith noted that the covenant also asks for a straight drive Melamed commented that <br />many of the houses in the development had curved driveways and is puzzled by the <br />requirement of straight driveways. Schroeder responded that it was an attempt to limit <br />impact on tree growth *n front yards. Melamed said the driveway across the street, as well <br />as that of the Simonds, is curv ed. <br />Schroeder said the 6’ is close but view s in support of the plan with Simonds approval as it <br />is a better design. <br />1 <br />i