Laserfiche WebLink
L <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION SIEET1NG <br />Wcdaoday, JuMry 22,2003 <br />0:30o*€leckp.n. <br />(i02-2tSf OLAKE AND MARY BICHAMCH, CMliavcd) <br />Zugsch>»ert fell she could support the 20* setback without seeing the application again. <br />^Arliilc he would accept a 20* side >ard setback on either side. Fnt/ler maintained that it be inclusur of <br />everything, chimney, air conditioning unit, overhangs, etc. <br />Chair Smith asked if stafT would be comfortable with the Commission not seeing the application again. <br />As long as it w-as understood e\Tr>lhing would be within the setback requirements, GafTron indicated that <br />there would be no real need to bring the application back before the Commission <br />Bichanich asked if I * overhangs would need to meet setbacks. <br />Gaffron reiterated that they would count as encroachmenu m a substandard setback zone. <br />Bichanich explained that, aesthetically, the standard overhang should be allowed outside the building <br />envelope. <br />Hawn asked how large the overhangs wctc in the proposed construction and w hetlwr the Commission <br />could support standard overhangs. <br />Bichanich stated that the overhangs vary from 1-4* for architectural interest. <br />Rahn stated that he could support 2* overhangs on either side of the home encroaching into the 20* <br />setback, but not 4* on either side. <br />Hawn stated that she would be alright with 4* overh^gs encroaciiing into the side >ard setback <br />Hawn nMved, .Mabosth sreoaded. la approve AppReatiaa M2-2859, Blake aad .Mary Bichanich, <br />graatiag lot area aad ka width variances, aad side >ord setbacks of 20* oa diher skic of tkc <br />rcsidcocc wHb a asaalriaai of 4* roof overhaag oa either side cncroaehiag into the side yard <br />setback area*. to reoMval of the cabling shed in the ATS' hardcover looc aad benasc it b a <br />lung and narrow ihapcd lol. ia order to canslmct a acw hansr oa the properly located at 332 <br />Westlake Street. VCTTE: Ayes 6. .Nays I. Fritzler dtsscatfag. <br />Frit/ler indicated that he could not support a 4' overhang encroachment into the sideyard setback. <br />(Recess from 9:M - 9:15 P.M.) <br />m W62-2I60 SrNSTATE CONCEPTS, INC« 1955 HERITAGE DRIVr., variances 9:15- <br />10:04 P.M. <br />Todd Gorr. Applicant, was present <br />Gaffron summarized the applicant’s request for lot area and side setback variance for construction of a <br />new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. Technically, he added that a front yard <br />setback would be required as well. <br />PAGE 13 of 29