Laserfiche WebLink
April 16, 2019 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />width. The setback of the resulting paved area is shown as 3.5 feet on the site <br />plan prepared by the applicants’ site designer. <br /> <br />These changes result in conformity for most of the paved area with the two <br />limitations suggested by staff. One area, however, continues to violate these <br />limitations. The area highlighted in yellow below is both wider than 5 feet, and <br />closer than 5 feet to the property line. The result is the need for a variance for <br />an encroachment for a patio to a 3.5 foot setback. <br /> <br /> <br />(3) Staff Recommendation. For the reasons noted above, including the lack of <br />practical difficulties in complying with the code, lack of uniqueness that would <br />suggest that a variance would be reasonable in this case, and the fact that the <br />need for the variance is created by the applicants, staff does not recommend <br />approval of the variance for a side yard setback encroachment as shown on the <br />proposed plans. <br /> <br />The applicants can remedy this encroachment in one of two ways: Further cut <br />the paved area to meet the 5 foot setback, or to reduce the overall width to 5 <br />feet or less, so it qualifies as a walkway, rather than a patio. Without approval of <br />a variance, the applicants should amend the plan to conform this aspect of the <br />project to the stated requirements. <br /> <br />The applicants note that they did not include an application for a variance to this <br />setback, maintaining instead that the space is a “decorative walkway”, not <br />subject to the patio setback requirement. Staff noticed this variance as an